8 ms·

The FSF refuses to compromise their principles. They refuse to negotiate. I respect them for that, morally its nice to have a fixed point to hold the line and r

The FSF refuses to compromise their principles. They refuse to negotiate. I respect them for that, morally its nice to have a fixed point to hold the line and refuse to change, it gives you a benchmark against where to judge yourself. Even if sometimes you think the old guard ate a bit to much paste.

chimeracoder 12y ago
Exactly - every time I hear someone like ESR troll the FSF about why they should support "open source" instead and embrace proprietary software, I have to wonder what they're thinking. The sole purpose of the FSF is to promote free software. If the FSF had come out in support of this, I would have said that they're shirking on their responsibility. The FSF has been known to make compromises for the sake of pragmatism in the past, if and only if such compromises actually promote free software[1]. DRM in the browser is a very different case, though. It reminds me of the Republican party leader[0] in 2009 who said, on the topic of healthcare, 'It's over. Democrats lost. The people spoke, and they don't want healthcare. They want lower taxes. Democrats need to move on.'[2] [0] It may have been Eric Cantor, but I can't remember [1] e.g., using the LGPL instead of the GPL for glibc: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html [2] It's actually even worse than that, because political parties change their platforms over time, but since healthcare has been the crux of the Democratic party platform for half a century, it's the closest thing to a fixed principle as politics has.
- icebraining 12y ago
  Another example regarding [1] (by rms, not exactly the FSF) is actually supporting a non-copyleft/permissive license for libogg: http://lwn.net/Articles/299016/ http://lwn.net/Articles/299016/
- bcoates 12y ago
  Calling it "healthcare" is a Democratic shibboleth, it's not a word you hear Eric Cantor use a lot.
- anaphor 12y ago
  I sincerely doubt it was esr that was advocating closed source or non-free proprietary software. He's pretty staunchly in support of FOSS.
crncosta 12y ago
Yes, thank you FSF for being the stronghold of my freedom. I was expecting Mozilla to keep standing with the same comprise, but they are disappointing me as user :-(
- Touche 12y ago
  Mozilla can't stand up for users if they don't have any.
  - kaoD 12y ago
    They'd have me if they had stood up for me. I'll just stay in Chromium (edited, used to say just Chrome) I guess! If I'm going to get binary DRM blobs anyways, I'd rather use the best/fastest browser. EDIT: Please explain the downvotes! I won't know why you disagree or why I'm wrong if you just downvote and don't reply.
    - chimeracoder 12y ago
      > They'd have me if they had stood up for me. I'll just stay in Chrome I guess! The fact that you so readily admit that you'd rather just use a non-free browser[0] makes me doubt whether you'd actually be using Firefox even if they held out against DRM, rendering an increasing number of websites unviewable in Firefox. [0] Chrome, unlike Chromium, is not free or open source.
      - kaoD 12y ago
        I'd rather use the best browser. If Firefox sucks (I really don't want to rant about it) and doesn't even fight for their user's rights... why shouldn't I just use Chrome/ium[0]? I'm a switcher. I will stay with whoever offers the best browser or added value. Chrome is blazing fast for me and IMHO has better dev tools, which is why their browser is so popular. Mozilla's added value is their Foundation's goal, which they kind of betrayed accepting downloadable DRM blobs in their browser. I come back to Firefox from time to time just because I love Mozilla Foundation. DRM would be a great excuse to finally ditch Chrome forever. I'm not even mad about it and completely understand Mozilla's decision. I'm just sad I'm not coming back to Firefox because I'm having DRM blobs anyways. [0] When I said Chrome I meant Chrome/ium.
Morgawr 12y ago
I fear the day the FSF changes, be it because its leader(s) die (it's a fact of life, sadly) or the new world phases them out. That day is the day I will know freedom has lost. If Stallman came to me and said he's using a Windows machine and has given up on his uphill battle against proprietary software, it'd probably be the day I realize it's over. I thank the FSF and Richard Stallman for being an unwavering wall without compromises, it makes me feel safe and legitimizes me to follow an ideal. It lets me hold such ideal, a target, knowing it's possible to be like them one day.
- judk 12y ago
  > it's possible to be like them one day Every day you don't, every dollar you spend on proprietary software/content, it gets harder. That's why the FSF was created.

chimeracoder 12y ago

Exactly - every time I hear someone like ESR troll the FSF about why they should support "open source" instead and embrace proprietary software, I have to wonder what they're thinking. The sole purpose of the FSF is to promote free software. If the FSF had come out in support of this, I would have said that they're shirking on their responsibility. The FSF has been known to make compromises for the sake of pragmatism in the past, if and only if such compromises actually promote free software[1]. DRM in the browser is a very different case, though. It reminds me of the Republican party leader[0] in 2009 who said, on the topic of healthcare, 'It's over. Democrats lost. The people spoke, and they don't want healthcare. They want lower taxes. Democrats need to move on.'[2] [0] It may have been Eric Cantor, but I can't remember [1] e.g., using the LGPL instead of the GPL for glibc: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html [2] It's actually even worse than that, because political parties change their platforms over time, but since healthcare has been the crux of the Democratic party platform for half a century, it's the closest thing to a fixed principle as politics has.

icebraining 12y ago
Another example regarding [1] (by rms, not exactly the FSF) is actually supporting a non-copyleft/permissive license for libogg: http://lwn.net/Articles/299016/ http://lwn.net/Articles/299016/
bcoates 12y ago
Calling it "healthcare" is a Democratic shibboleth, it's not a word you hear Eric Cantor use a lot.
anaphor 12y ago
I sincerely doubt it was esr that was advocating closed source or non-free proprietary software. He's pretty staunchly in support of FOSS.

crncosta 12y ago

Yes, thank you FSF for being the stronghold of my freedom. I was expecting Mozilla to keep standing with the same comprise, but they are disappointing me as user :-(

Touche 12y ago
Mozilla can't stand up for users if they don't have any.
- kaoD 12y ago
  They'd have me if they had stood up for me. I'll just stay in Chromium (edited, used to say just Chrome) I guess! If I'm going to get binary DRM blobs anyways, I'd rather use the best/fastest browser. EDIT: Please explain the downvotes! I won't know why you disagree or why I'm wrong if you just downvote and don't reply.
  - chimeracoder 12y ago
    > They'd have me if they had stood up for me. I'll just stay in Chrome I guess! The fact that you so readily admit that you'd rather just use a non-free browser[0] makes me doubt whether you'd actually be using Firefox even if they held out against DRM, rendering an increasing number of websites unviewable in Firefox. [0] Chrome, unlike Chromium, is not free or open source.
    - kaoD 12y ago
      I'd rather use the best browser. If Firefox sucks (I really don't want to rant about it) and doesn't even fight for their user's rights... why shouldn't I just use Chrome/ium[0]? I'm a switcher. I will stay with whoever offers the best browser or added value. Chrome is blazing fast for me and IMHO has better dev tools, which is why their browser is so popular. Mozilla's added value is their Foundation's goal, which they kind of betrayed accepting downloadable DRM blobs in their browser. I come back to Firefox from time to time just because I love Mozilla Foundation. DRM would be a great excuse to finally ditch Chrome forever. I'm not even mad about it and completely understand Mozilla's decision. I'm just sad I'm not coming back to Firefox because I'm having DRM blobs anyways. [0] When I said Chrome I meant Chrome/ium.

Morgawr 12y ago

I fear the day the FSF changes, be it because its leader(s) die (it's a fact of life, sadly) or the new world phases them out. That day is the day I will know freedom has lost. If Stallman came to me and said he's using a Windows machine and has given up on his uphill battle against proprietary software, it'd probably be the day I realize it's over. I thank the FSF and Richard Stallman for being an unwavering wall without compromises, it makes me feel safe and legitimizes me to follow an ideal. It lets me hold such ideal, a target, knowing it's possible to be like them one day.

judk 12y ago
> it's possible to be like them one day Every day you don't, every dollar you spend on proprietary software/content, it gets harder. That's why the FSF was created.