It's more like pseudo-free

Even the constitution recognises this

You are only free if you don't mess with others freedoms

Which it doesn't

Which it doesn't

Which it prevents

Which it prevents

?

The only person who would have problems with the GPL is someone trying to closed source a GPL program

Eh

Not really

Because I'm not trying to close-source a GPL program

What issue do you have?

And I think the GPL, while beneficial to so many projects, is also pretty amusing.

What issue do you have?

We've already gone over this

Do you even know the GPLs restrictions or are you just pissed there's restrictions on the first place?

Do you even know the GPLs restrictions or are you just pissed there's restrictions on the first place?

I've read it, yes.

The only person who would have problems with the GPL is someone trying to closed source a GPL program

?

Did you feel this isn't the case?

Did you feel this isn't the case?

Once again, I'm not trying to close source a GPL program, or any program for that matter.

Just pointing out the flaws in it.

It's still a great license nonetheless.

It just invalidates the term "free" in this sense at the same time it preserves it.

Just pointing out the flaws in it.

It's not a flaw it's a deliberate design ?

If someone's looking for truly "free" licenses, the GPL isn't the first place I'd point them, that's all.

It's not a flaw it's a deliberate design ?

Intent can very well be flawed. ;)

As Stallman once said

?

"the GPL takes away the freedom to take away freedom"

Anything RMS says is hard not to take as a joke, so maybe not a good starter

"the GPL takes away the freedom to take away freedom"

Which immediately invalidates itself, and that's the entire point.

No it does not

Haha, it's okay. You'll figure it out.

If you cannot recognise the very obvious importance of making sure everyone keeps their freedoms, there is a problem

If you cannot recognise the very obvious importance of making sure everyone keeps their freedoms, there is a problem

I did not say that I don't recognize the importance of that

Nor did I say it doesn't aim to do that overall

Protecting freedoms by removing freedoms is the irony of it. Simple as that.

Still a great license, and still a very valid one.

Protecting freedoms by removing freedoms is the irony of it. Simple as that.

It's more of a paradox I think

But oh well ?

phylosophy?

I think one of the best examples of why a lax licence is a bad idea for freedom is macOS, which is basically a BSD, but because of the licence, the can get away with being proprietary.

I think one of the best examples of why a lax licence is a bad idea for freedom is macOS, which is basically a BSD, but because of the licence, the can get away with being proprietary.

And tbh, that's still fine

Because that doesn't change that the original code is open/free

And tbh, that's still fine

It's fine commercially but not ethically

It means they can do whatever they want with the work they do from there

It's fine commercially but not ethically

Eh, ethics are subjective

The ideal scenario is OpenBSD being the popular one

In this case, everyone in the world would now have secure computers

But no, they have spyware

?

I think one of the best examples of why a lax licence is a bad idea for freedom is macOS, which is basically a BSD, but because of the licence, the can get away with being proprietary.

macOS is not basically BSD, and the part of macOS which is that low level is 100% FOSS

Well, it's been a while since they were very similar, but imagine the early versions when they had just forked it to make the first macs

even early versions shipped with a kernel without BSD code

#doubt

There's always been BSD code in macOS

Even the kernel is mostly kfreebsd

But my point is, that when your project is large enough to save some very anti freedom companies time, BSD/MIT are bad licences

Once again, that's really not for anyone to dictate but the people doing it.

Once again, that's really not for anyone to dictate but the people doing it.

That depends on who you value

Which is a nice thing about those licenses.

If you value the developer, BSD/MIT are great. If you value the company, proprietary licences are marvelous, and if you value the users, you pic GPL

If you value the developer, BSD/MIT are great. If you value the company, proprietary licences are marvelous, and if you value the users, you pic GPL

Also not really something so simply put.

Apple users are typically pretty happy with their OS last time I checked

Ignorance is bliss

?

That's what I always found amusing about the "freedom" crowd

North Koreans are "happy" too

ERROR: S client not available

They assume everyone is ignorant because they don't seem to believe anyone makes these choices knowingly

Freedom loving people are the most pushy and demanding people I know ?‍♂️

the only proprietary part of macOS is what the normal user interacts with

as with Android

the rest is free

North Koreans are "happy" too

A rather blind analogy

in the old times you had Darwin disros with GNOME

A rather blind analogy

indeed

They assume everyone is ignorant because they don't seem to believe anyone makes these choices knowingly

There's always reasons

But how many casual users are reading the terms of service for their software?

"I have read and agree" is the biggest lie of the computer era

But how many casual users are reading the terms of service for their software?

Not all of them, probably not most of them. They probably prefer to just enjoy it and get real work done.

Welcome to the world!

in the old times you had Darwin disros with GNOME

That sounds fun :3

Things RMS say are often taken as a joke, until people realize his opinions and paranoia are totally justified

Things RMS say are often taken as a joke, until people realize his opinions and paranoia are totally justified

They're taken as a joke by me because of the childish way he goes about them.

He demands ridiculous shit from people just to appease him and his ideology

Welcome!

Stallman is a reputed activist

he speaks very well, he addresses to everyone, not just computer literate people

society usually dissents from activists, but this doesn't mean that what he says is false

He demands ridiculous shit from people just to appease him and his ideology

People are now waking up to the dangers of facebook social media on privacy, stallman advocated against that shit since it first come up

/me waits for the punchline

People are now waking up to the dangers of facebook social media on privacy, stallman advocated against that shit since it first come up

Good for him!

the practical discourse of Torvarlds is easier to digest for society

stallman's ideals are hard or "ridiculous" to apply, that doesn't mean the ideas themselves are ridiculous

No, he does have valid points

I didn't say his ideals are ridiculous

It's his "cater to me" behaviour around normal goddamn people ?

Going so far as to demand podcasts rename around his "GNU/Linux" hard-on for an interview

Something more recently noted to be worth absolutely nothing

?