search

rms-support-letter / rms-support-letter.github.io

An open letter in support of Richard Matthew Stallman being reinstated by the Free Software Foundation
https://rms-support-letter.github.io/
GNU General Public License v3.0
2.33k stars 4.37k forks source link

Github is proprietary software. Why it's used to support the figher against proprietary software? #413

Closed amarao closed 3 years ago

amarao commented 3 years ago

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/discuss-gnustep/2015-12/msg00168.html

GitHub does things that are quite bad for free software and is
not interested in changing them.
6r1d commented 3 years ago

No, it is the planet Earth a hellhole So the tool is inherently harmful.

Yeah, there's a lot of problems alright. So, what do you propose? What's the point you're leading us to?

KOLANICH commented 3 years ago

So, what do you propose?

Not to use GPL, AGPL, GFDL and even LGPL (at least for languages like C, if headers are not licensed separately under a permissive license). Try to stay away of the code (usually libs, but also file formats, if there is no permissive impl) under LGPL, GPL and AGPL. Try to persuade people not to use GPL.

6r1d commented 3 years ago

Not to use GPL, AGPL, GFDL and even LGPL Try to persuade people not to use GPL.

And what good will that bring, tactically or strategically?

And this sounds like a defeatist thinking to me, so I totally disagree.

KOLANICH commented 3 years ago

And what good will that bring, tactically or strategically?

Both tactically and strategically. Less people will be relied on copyright system. Less people will pretend that copyright is good. Less people will get losses from abolishing copyright, so less of them would have incentives to vote for keeping copyright. Using GPL-like licenses will become a marker "I wanna look like a FOSSie, but wanna extort like a proprietarian" (in fact it already is, but there is large enough chance that a person was just misleaded, to determine his reall attitude to copyright one has to ask him to relicense under another license, and often the response contains clearly pro-copyright statements). It was "strategically".

Tactically:

6r1d commented 3 years ago

Less people will be relied on copyright system

I believe this is shortsighted. The lack of license means you don't give others any rights to your program whatsoever in many countries. To push changes you need to show flaws in copyright to as many people as you can, especially if they have any influence and can spread the message. Which is kinda what RMS did.

Using GPL-like licenses will become a marker "I wanna look like a FOSSie, but wanna extort like a proprietarian"

It exists for decades. We are talking about an old, widely adopted idea. Give it some credit.

he must start from himself

Did I see unlicense in one of your repos? You can try doing that and continue that. Especially in big, popular projects. I won't agree with you completely at this point, but that's an action.

more non-gpl projects means less reinvention of wheel and less fragmented ecosystem

Same with more GPL projects. More integrated stuff and more widely adopted Unix approach.

Tyil commented 3 years ago

Right, there's no decent discussion to be had with @KOLANICH, he just wants to be angry and pretend he's the only smart person on the entire planet. I'm out, and I'll stick to using AGPL wherever I can ;)

KOLANICH commented 3 years ago

The lack of license means you don't give others any rights to your program whatsoever in many countries.

That's why I use Unlicense.

To push changes you need to show flaws in copyright to as many people as you can, especially if they have any influence and can spread the message. Which is kinda what RMS did.

Yes. But not by GPL, but by other activity.

It exists for decades.

Gangs exist for decades. DPRK and PRC exist for decades.

We are talking about an old, widely adopted idea. Give it some credit.

The fact the idea is old doesn't mean it is a good idea.

Did I see unlicense in one of your repos?

If you visited my GH profile (and orgs owned by me, I have moved the most of my repos into orgs because there are too much of them in the main profile) and filter out forks, you would see that most of my repos use "Unlicense" license.

Same with more GPL projects. More integrated stuff and more widely adopted Unix approach.

No. Permissive licenses mean one is allowed to use any license he likes in own software. GPL means one must use GPL. This way GPL is a war against all other licenses.

dzhigit1 commented 3 years ago

No. Permissive licenses mean one is allowed to use any license he likes in own software. GPL means one must use GPL. This way GPL is a war against all other licenses.

Proprietary licenses do not allow sub licensing either. So what is wrong with GPL?

Areso commented 3 years ago

Many of the hardware protocols are open, stuff gets more and more documented, many scopes of said blobs are limited, it's not that terrible, and besides, stuff like Noveau drivers for Nvidia is developed.

Opensource drives are mess. I tried ones with my GTX 750 Ti, then with 1050 Ti, half of the games are failed to run/work properly. So it is working, but not very good. Not good enough. But still thanks to enthusiasts. Any chances to run a Linux distro on a cheap laptop with Wi-Fi, bluetooth, sleep, hybernate, fingerprint scanner? Okay it was easy question, chances are good. Not 100% though. Any chances to run a modern Linux distro with modern Kernel on a cheap tablet, which came with Windows / Android? With all the stuff, including all above, and the hardware GPU acceleration? Atom's GPUs were PITA for a decade long, may be even longer. GPUs from ARM SoCs are entirely mess. Seriously? I think you're ignoring quite a bit of context for decades there.

GPL doesn't (didn't) do the virus magic with those things. And enthusiasts, well, they could choose every license they wanna use. If the first person in the chain of driver-writing select the MIT/BSD license, then it would be this. And no special-especial magic attached behind the choosing or behind the following work. Even for big projects with a big number of contributors GPL is not always a good choice. But for lesser projects - I am sure the license doesn't give a hint of usefullness.

KOLANICH commented 3 years ago

Proprietary licenses do not allow sub licensing either. So what is wrong with GPL?

What could be wrong with in a large part a proprietary license?

6r1d commented 3 years ago

What could be wrong with in a large part a proprietary license?

And now you're replacing "Copyleft" with "Proprietary". ;-)

6r1d commented 3 years ago

Opensource drives are mess. I tried ones with my GTX 750 Ti, then with 1050 Ti

I'm using NVidia from time to time myself. I even write this text from a computer with an NVidia video card. And I don't like the proprietary driver either. Don't waste time on arguing what sort of garbage is better, NVidia tends to mess up.

Any chances to run a modern Linux distro with modern Kernel on a cheap tablet, which came with Windows / Android?

Reminder: I'm here to fix the situation with RMS, not to support anyone who had issues with their tablet. Yes, those are closed. And no, it's not a Linux problem. Linux will be an easier system to port there, should there be a financial incentive.

Areso commented 3 years ago

I'm here to fix the situation with RMS

Well, in that case you could stop participating in the activities, since he kinda apologized and kept his position. At least, for now. So, the petition may be worked out as it supposed to.

not to support anyone who had issues with their tablet.

It is how a disscussion works: starts with one subject and then, based on examples and tricks, it starts drift off somewhere else. Sometimes - entirely. Back to the tablets: I don't ask for help, I just indicated, there are 'classes' of devices, where GNU/Linux distros doesn't work properly. Why it doesn't work properly? Because GPL is not a silver bullet. Especially, with the topic. In my opinion, it is not virusable enough. You may use blobs with a kernel and it is okayish practice, acceptable by the license. So, the license is not good enough to prevent this situation happen

Finally,

Many of the hardware protocols are open, stuff gets more and more documented, many scopes of said blobs are limited, it's not that terrible, and besides, stuff like

Just a cheap talk for either enthusiasts or for poors. Not always the documentation even exists Not always it exists in English (there is should be a funny/sad joke about Chinese hardware makers) Not always it is descriptive, fully enough Not always is open and free to use without signing a deal with a Devil Not always it is free of charge.

Let's I have (had) a printer, which was sold in dozens millions units. Canon LBP 2900, if I remember correct. The driver, should it exists, should be simple enough. Or documentation. Not compatible with GPU drivers, for a reference, in terms of complexcity. Whatever - it was PITA to run it within popular Linux distros.