/hobby/ - Hobbies

Entertainment, Education, Games, etc.

catalog
Mode: Reply
Name
E-mail
Subject
Message

Max message length: 8192

Files

Max file size: 20.00 MB

Max files: 3

Password

(used to delete files and postings)

Misc

Remember to follow the rules


(69.17 KB 600x804 stallman.jpg)
Comrade 08/14/2019 (Wed) 11:57:09 No. 1000
Is Richard Stallman a socialist?
>>703
>1
Not an issue we ALL have opinions that we don't like.

>2
>Vi
Lel just tell him you use vi if it gets rid of him

>Matress
Whats the problem?

>3rd point
Just tell him to fuck off and ignore him.

honestly.
>>711
Make sure you don't use the "or later version" clause when using GPL licenses!
>>715
>Make sure you don't use the "or later version" clause when using GPL licenses!
I do, still clearly hope nothing happens to it/them.
>>709
What the fuck? Usually Stallman has an iron will.
>>714
The vi thing is obviously a joke and it is well known that Stallman was homeless and sleeping in his office for years.
(76.46 KB 640x1216 1516712163855.jpg)
>>709
This is all so disheartening. I can't even feel any rage, just sadness, that people aren't willing to understand each other anymore.
(44.17 KB 549x563 intredasting.jpg)
Let's recap:
Any of Epstein's criminal friends like Bill Clinton or Donald Trump faced any consequences for their crimes yet? Nope, and likely never.

Onlookers punished for commenting? Two and counting.

Is this what justice looks like?
>>720
Who was the other?
>>723
Lawrence Lessig
(139.12 KB 1920x796 AGPLv3_Logo.svg.png)
>>499
If Richard Stallman was a socialist , the GNU project would be licensed under AGPL3. As it is, the FSF makes a distinction about who "owns" a computer when it considers whether it is ethical to use proprietary software.

Any socialist would see that it is irrelevant what device a piece of software is running on. Either it is ethical to use proprietary software on any person's computer, or it is unethical to use on every computer.

If GNU was entirely AGPL3, nearly every website in existence would be forced to provide the source code for everything running on the server. This would make Silicon Valley nearly impossible, as they try to keep their AI and datamining etc. secret.

Someone would probably argue that if GNU used AGPL3, it would not have received nearly as many corporate contributions, and they instead would be using proprietary Unix (good for us, because expensive software licenses makes doing business less lucrative) or one of the BSDs.

My compromise is: sell exceptions to the AGPL3 license (like Qt does). This would be extremely lucrative for GNU, and would make it able to hire a huge number of developers to work on the OS, and to pay them better. GNU provides billions of dollars of value to Silicon Valley.

So at the cost of enabling a few large proprietary internet services, we get a dream OS licensed under a radical socialist license, with enough funding to develop free software alternatives to compete with the proprietary platforms.

Just my 2 cents.
>>731
How is AGPL different from GPL?
>>731
AGPL only applies to the software that remote users interact with.
>>733
Networked services must make available the exact source code they are running on to their users. (Human or not)
>>731
>Any socialist would see that it is irrelevant what device a piece of software is running on. Either it is ethical to use proprietary software on any person's computer, or it is unethical to use on every computer.
I see know reason to consider RMS or the FSF socialist, but the FSF does recognize this, the direction they went was out of pure practicality and fear of backlash from their corporate users (and with it many of the free programs they control). Which you recognize further in your post, to quote the FSF:
>Early drafts of GPLv3 allowed licensors to add an Affero-like requirement to publish source in section 7. However, some companies that develop and rely upon free software consider this requirement to be too burdensome. They want to avoid code with this requirement, and expressed concern about the administrative costs of checking code for this additional requirement. By publishing the GNU Affero GPLv3 as a separate license, with provisions in it and GPLv3 to allow code under these licenses to link to each other, we accomplish all of our original goals while making it easier to determine which code has the source publication requirement.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#SeparateAffero

>If GNU was entirely AGPL3, nearly every website in existence would be forced to provide the source code for everything running on the server. This would make Silicon Valley nearly impossible, as they try to keep their AI and datamining etc. secret.
No, they would just fork the previous version of the code, look for liberally licensed alternatives, or make their own versions of their dependencies from scratch. Remember that the commits to high cost complex open source software are almost universally corporations as well. They have complete control even of much of free-software.

>My compromise is: sell exceptions to the AGPL3 license (like Qt does). This would be extremely lucrative for GNU, and would make it able to hire a huge number of developers to work on the OS, and to pay them better. GNU provides billions of dollars of value to Silicon Valley.
Why would companies pay though? Why wouldn't the companies just continue development on the old branch before the license change?
>>733
>How is AGPL different from GPL?
To quote the fsf:
>The GNU Affero General Public License is a modified version of the ordinary GNU GPL version 3. It has one added requirement: if you run a modified program on a server and let other users communicate with it there, your server must also allow them to download the source code corresponding to the modified version running there.

>The purpose of the GNU Affero GPL is to prevent a problem that affects developers of free programs that are often used on servers.

>Suppose you develop and release a free program under the ordinary GNU GPL. If developer D modifies the program and releases it, the GPL requires him to distribute his version under the GPL too. Thus, if you get a copy of his version, you are free to incorporate some or all of his changes into your own version.

>But suppose the program is mainly useful on servers. When D modifies the program, he might very likely run it on his own server and never release copies. Then you would never get a copy of the source code of his version, so you would never have the chance to include his changes in your version. You may not like that outcome.

>Using the GNU Affero GPL avoids that outcome. If D runs his version on a server that everyone can use, you too can use it. Assuming he has followed the license requirement to let the server's users download the source code of his version, you can do so, and then you can incorporate his changes into your version. (If he hasn't followed it, you have your lawyer complain to him.)

>Both the ordinary GNU GPL, version 3, and the GNU Affero GPL have text allowing you to link together modules under these two licenses in one program.
I license all my software under this license.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html
>>738
So basically it's to fight proprietary service-as-a-software-substitute? Is that correct.
>>740
>So basically it's to fight proprietary service-as-a-software-substitute? Is that correct.
No to quote the second part of that FSF article:
>The GNU Affero GPL does not address the problem of Service as a Software Substitute (SaaSS).

>SaaSS means that users use someone else's web server to do their own computing. This requires them to send their data to the server, which does their computing for them and sends the results back to them. SaaSS is an injustice because the users cannot control their computing when it's done that way.

>If some program on this server is released under the GNU Affero GPL, the server is required to offer the users the corresponding source of that program. That is good, but having this source code does not give them control over the computing done on that server. It also does not tell them what other software may be running on that server, examining or changing their data in other ways.

>We don't see any sensible way to address the SaaSS problem with license conditions on particular programs. Even to write a legal condition to distinguish between SaaSS use and non-SaaSS use would be a challenge, and if we had that, we don't see anything that the program's license might require in the SaaSS case that would correct the inherent wrong of SaaSS. Thus, our solution to the problem of SaaSS is simple: refuse to use services that are SaaSS.

>If a program is meant specifically and only for SaaSS, you shouldn't write it. But many programs are useful for a variety of kinds of services, including some that are SaaSS and some that are not. It's useful to write and release these programs so people can set up non-SaaSS services with them, and good to release them under the AGPL.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html
>>741
Let me rephrase that: it's basically the fight the proprietary aspect of service-as-a-software-substitute? It can't get rid of SaaSS, but AGPL at least lets people know the source of the service they're using (whereas GPL does not)?
>>743
>Let me rephrase that: it's basically the fight the proprietary aspect of service-as-a-software-substitute? It can't get rid of SaaSS, but AGPL at least lets people know the source of the service they're using (whereas GPL does not)?
Yes, if you use the broad definition of SaaSS this is exactly what it tries to do. It's important to note that some people define SaaSS as a specific type of subscription based service though, and the AGPL attempts to deal with all services not just these. For example if the software Google used to run its gratis search service was AGPL they would be required to release this software even though it being gratis means it isn't strictly a SaaSS.

>>737
>Remember that the commits to high cost complex open source software are almost universally corporations as well. They have complete control even of much of free-software.
This reminds me that we really need a code of conduct to protect us from those things that a license can't practically protect us from such as increasing corporate control, privacy issues, perhaps even code complexity and documentation issues, etc.
>>737
>Why would companies pay though? Why wouldn't the companies just continue development on the old branch before the license change?
GNU would have to develop a good enough product to remain competitive. It seems practical to me because at the moment it's the best OS in existence.
>>741
>It also does not tell them what other software may be running on that server, examining or changing their data in other ways.

I believe it requires a) the source of the program itself to be released, and since AGPL is derived from the GPL, b) the source of any program linked with the AGPL-licensed program. This already provides a massive hurdle for SaaSS, but can be circumvented.

You could make a new license that says something like "release the source code of any program that touches the same data as my program" or "release the source code of any program that runs on the same device as my program". Maybe such a license is legally infeasible for reasons I'm not aware of, but I'm not an expert. I believe licenses are only allowed to set terms for things that are legally determined to be derived works, so maybe that's it.
>>770
>GNU would have to develop a good enough product to remain competitive. It seems practical to me because at the moment it's the best OS in existence.
Linux isn't part of the GNU project, and they certainly never would have implemented anything to offend their corporate overlords who make over 80% of their commits, provide all the funds for the foundation, and generally have complete control over the kernel. To my knowledge the only thing particularly difficult to replace would be GCC, and there is already Clang. Even if Linux went AGPL it actually wouldn't change that much now that I think about it because nobody even links to the kernel. There are also other options with the only downside being primarily hardware support.
>>774
GANG
>>681
Person who posted this here. I will self-crit. I posted it on an impulse judgement (thinking of Stallman's past autistic statements about pedophilia, support for regime change in Libya and Syria, and his general idealism/stupidity), but it turns out that there really was a coordinated smear campaign against him (probably CIA + software giants) that completely falsified his statements about Epstein.
While his actual emails weren't that great either, the fact that the campaign uniformly promoted complete falsifications is evidence to me that it is some kind of "regime change" against free software. Motivations include the drive to privatize free software, and the geopolitical conflict between USA and Russia+China. The CIA doesn't want competing powers to have access to Linux and other important tools anymore. Stallman, in spite of his flaws, did go on speaking tours in countries like Venezuela urging them to resist US surveillance using free software. I have seen a number of M$ employees and shills even suggesting that the GPL is irreparably tainted and should be replaced (with something "permissive" of course).
I think the fact that Stallman, a very poor speaker and theoretician, was basically one of the only people staunchly standing for the free software idea, shows that programmers have a very weak petty booj consciousness. Communists should uphold the strongest copyleft licenses (AGPL) and also promote a stronger, more materialist conception of communist free software.
This twitter account has a number of good tweets on the anti-Stallman crusade:
https://twitter.com/joenihl
>>807
>Person who posted this here. I will self-crit. I posted it on an impulse judgement, but it turns out that there really was a coordinated smear campaign against him that completely falsified his statements about Epstein.
Well done comrade, such a thing is not easy to do.

>Motivations include the drive to privatize free software, and the geopolitical conflict between USA and Russia+China. The CIA doesn't want competing powers to have access to Linux and other important tools anymore.
I'm not sure I can agree with this. The most likely scenario to me is that this was not a attempt to attack existing free software at all, but rather a attempt to generate the illusion of individuals being punished for their association with or comments on Epstein without actually punishing any of the offenders. In regards to your comments free software is already under the control of US corporations and government agencies which make; for example, some 80% of the contribution to the Linux kernel, and entirely fund the foundation. These individuals are known to intentionally insert security defects to allow them to infiltrate foreign systems, including those of geopolitical rivals.

>I have seen a number of M$ employees and shills even suggesting that the GPL is irreparably tainted and should be replaced (with something "permissive" of course).
This could be another reason that Stallman was targeted. While existing projects are already under corporate control, this might be useful for the sake slandering free software, and discouraging its further development. Have you seen the recently released "Hippocratic License", it epitomizes this.

>shows that programmers have a very weak petty booj consciousness.
This is of course the case.
>>807
Also, Stallman does not deserve to be homeless.
https://stallman.org/seeking-housing.html
Reading this makes me realize how selflessly he worked/works for his ideal. He sets a good example, though I think revolutionaries should plan ahead better.
(68.91 KB 680x593 never.jpg)
(334.00 KB 1148x813 5serztu.jpg)
>>810
>>809
>>812

So basically the conclusion is that all the cultural and social stuff has to dropped because it's just a vector for political persecution
>>812
This may be fake because his PIECE OF SHIT ASSISTANT is defacing his website right now.
(86.08 KB 1280x720 salute.jpg)
>>812
>>813
>>814
Update: both resignation claims have been removed. It appears GNU is safe... for now.
>>814
What the fuck?
>>834
>https://geoff.greer.fm/2019/09/30/in-defense-of-richard-stallman/
This was a well written summary. The ending quote was also pleasant, at least everything hasn't been destroyed:

>I continue to be the Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project. I do not intend to stop any time soon. I found new interim housing — thanks to those who helped.
>>834
>The original Remove Richard Stallman post contained leaked communications from a private mailing list. In it, the author quotes an email from Stallman where he explains that Marvin Minsky likely wouldn’t have known that the woman on Jeffrey Epstein’s island was coerced:
<…the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates.
>A paragraph later, the author summarizes Stallman’s view as:
<…he says that an enslaved child could, somehow, be “entirely willing”.
>This is the opposite of what Stallman said, but this lie was repeated by the press. An article in the Daily Beast said:
<Stallman wrote that “the most plausible scenario” for Giuffre’s accusations was that she was, in actuality, “entirely willing.”
>An article in Vice spread the same lie:
<Early in the thread, Stallman insists that the “most plausible scenario” is that Epstein’s underage victims were “entirely willing” while being trafficked.
>There are two possibilities here. Either the author of the Medium post was not capable of correctly parsing the sentence, or she didn’t care about truth and was leveling as many accusations as possible in the hope that one would stick. In other words: she is either foolish or malicious. The same goes for the writers of the Vice and Daily Beast articles.
Most users commenting on Metafailfilter also repeated the lie (there's also a bit in the "discussion" there about Hackernews being nazis because they don't all condemn Stallman and somethingsomething Gamergate). An unbearable faggot comments: "Stallman should, at minimum, have been chased out of anywhere he had a position after the abortion joke" (https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/05/09/gnu_glic_abort_stallman/).

I think the solution for improving online media is cyberbullying liberals.
I still don't get the abortion clinic joke controversy, it was a joke /supporting/ liberals! Why did they get mad?!
>>842
It's "unprofessional" and makes HR and recruiters mad. That's how it was explained to me by the musl developer, of all people. This is all just one portfolio-building exercise for your Google application, where you can then work on ICE's fancy new surveillance gear.
(127.92 KB 1280x720 1378541603278.jpg)
>>845
Sounds like someone needs to read SICP.
>>841
The worst thing about the outrage about the abortion joke is that the abortion joke is actually a pro-choice joke about anti-abortion censorship.
>Future Change Warning: Proposed Federal censorship regulations may prohibit us from giving you information about the possibility of calling this function. We would be required to say that this is not an acceptable way of terminating a program.
Some people are just so absolutely fucking thick.
>>858
Not thick, so thin that any mention to a taboo subject will trigger them and the whole world has to end.
(798.91 KB 1536x1957 1570468755532.jpg)
Oh for fuck's sake, they're still at it.
>>868
jesus
>>868
Just judging by the fact that the banner on his site stating that ``I continue to be the Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project. I do not intend to stop any time soon.'' has stayed up for as long as it has I believe this final stage of the coup failed.
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you’re referring to as Taiwan, is in fact, People's Republic of China/Taiwan, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, People's Republic of China plus Taiwan. Taiwan is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning People's Republic of China system made useful by the People's Republic of China corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by Communist Party of China. Many computer users run a modified version of the People's Republic of China system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of People's Republic of China which is widely used today is often called “Taiwan”, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the People's Republic of China system, developed by the People's Republic of China Project. There really is a Taiwan, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Taiwan is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine’s resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Taiwan is normally used in combination with the People's Republic of China operating system: the whole system is basically People's Republic of China with Taiwan added, or People's Republic of China/Taiwan. All the so-called “Taiwan” distributions are really distributions of People's Republic of China/Taiwan.

>>499
yes?
>>1063
Linux isn't an OS.

Delete
Report

no cookies?