Richard Stallman Reportedly Steps Down As Head Of The GNU Project

You might be going too far there, actually. Your "research and development" is based on "acquired things for free"; whether it's thousands of years of prior research, learning, and publishing, or the ubiquity of the open source code that helped you to become a developer in the first place. There are valid reasons, obviously, to be rewarded for your work and expertise. However, it would have to be done in a different way; either by providing a service while using the free tools/code for a company or person(s), or by creating an entirely new thing as a developer. Otherwise, you are guilty of the same thing that you accuse users and proponents of GPL to be; namely, a lazy person (developer). In case that's somehow not clear: If you are using open source software (i.e. GPL licensed) to create something on top of it, then you are being lazy for not doing it the hard way. You are being lazy and accepting something for free as the foundation of your own "work".

If, however, you feel that your work will be beneficial for others long after you stop developing, then you are glad to contribute to the advancement of human development. Whether it's on a small scale, like giving another young person the ability to learn from your contributions; or on a bigger scale, by allowing tools and technology to be built upon your work.

If everything is obfuscated and hidden to everyone but the person/company that owns it, we will be reinventing the wheel over and over again. Worse yet, companies are charging for research that had been done with public funding, freely licensed, or even completed hundreds of years ago. The GPL license is a necessity if for nothing else but to counter those same perverse actions that have been ongoing for a long time and that will continue. The stability, security, and the ubiquity of open source software in today's technological age is a testament to the importance and effectiveness of the GPL **and** its cousins, less restrictive open source licenses.

I almost perfectly agree with view above, except I wouldn't call reuse of willingly opensourced base-solutions/frameworks/libraries as being lazy. I'm not demanding anyone to give me things for free. Lazy people, takers, demand things to be free. These SJW people of "Free Software Movement" are demanding things/software to be free,...

I share the opinion, that it's good to share, have community, and improve together, basis for software/application development. Even just using common open source basis, without direct contributement, grows community and brings potential future contributors. However, I disagree, that all solutions, based on willingly shared work, should be enforced to be open sourced.

Perfectly healthy opensource basis for software is licensed under Apache license. You can see it in Java world. There are lots of utilities and framework opensourced under Apache license. There are built proprietary solutions on top of these libraries, which provide specific solutions for specific business domain. However, Java developers work together to create free platform, which is shared then, and allows creation of specific solutions without reinventing the wheel.

My respect goes to people, who developed various GPL software, as they were focused on making software free. I think, that lots of them picked wrong license, which causes dimishing of their software. If they have had picked Apache, they would have built more healthy free basis in software world. It's bit of sad, that effort of these developers is lost, but it's truth. GPL software will mostly dimish, and Apache software prevails.

[agronick]

I wonder how many people who think this is grave injustice would feel the same way if they read his blog posts. I was totally against Stallman long before this came out. His recent issues pale in comparison to the fact that he posted multiple times on his blog that he children should be having sex with adults. Ever since I read those posts I've been completely against him. Add to that the fact that he would harass the women who worked at MIT and his recent statements and this is a no-brainer that he should step down.

Here are some of the things hes posted on his blog over the years:

I am sceptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren’t voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing.

There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children. Granted, children may not dare say no to an older relative, or may not realise they could say no; in that case, even if they do not overtly object, the relationship may still feel imposed to them. That’s not willing participation, it’s imposed participation, a different issue.

Dubya has nominated another caveman for a federal appeals court. Refreshingly, the Democratic Party is organizing opposition. The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, "prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia" also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally — but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness.

Some rules might be called for when these acts directly affect other people's interests. For incest, contraception could be mandatory to avoid risk of inbreeding. For prostitution, a license should be required to ensure prostitutes get regular medical check-ups, and they should have training and support in insisting on use of condoms. This will be an advance in public health, compared with the situation today.

For necrophilia, it might be necessary to ask the next of kin for permission if the decedent's will did not authorize it. Necrophilia would be my second choice for what should be done with my corpse, the first being scientific or medical use. Once my dead body is no longer of any use to me, it may as well be of some use to someone. Besides, I often enjoy rhinophytonecrophilia (nasal sex with dead plants).

I've read that male dolphins try to have sex with humans, and female apes solicit sex from humans. What is wrong with giving them what they want, if that's what turns you on, or even just to gratify them?

A parrot once had sex with me. I did not recognize the act as sex until it was explained to me afterward, but being stroked on the hand by his soft belly feathers was so pleasurable that I yearn for another chance. I have a photo of that act; should I go to prison for it?

You can find the source of any of these quotes by searching them on stallman.org like this in Google site:stallman.org "recognize the act as sex until it was explained to me afterward"

Freedom of speach is not freedom of consequences. I can promote pedophilia all I want (which is sex with prepubescent children). I can not expect to say things like this at work and keep my job.

[azdaha]

Yep, some SJW people of the "Free Software Movement", fighting for extreme position of freedom (emphasis on free as in free beer) to take anything they want, would be quite nice addition to The Circus ;-)

I like, and share, the view, that Free Software is a way to change the world towards a better place. The only thing, that I'm against regarding Free Software, is the extreme leftist position/attitude of some Free Software advocates/proponents. My disagreement only applies to that extreme - these SJW people of FSF, and GPL license.

History confirms, that socialism didn't work well.

Actually, history confirms that lack of Socialism does not end well. French Revolution American Revolution has been attributed to that as well, btw. If you are implying that the Soviet Union failed because of Socialism, you are probably wrong; unless you also mean that the only way to govern is through perpetual militarism.

I better stop, as this thread is all over the place and, yet again, troll central and the original article/announcement was proven to be false.

I think this article should be amended with information that the information turned out to be fake.

[azdaha]

This news as far as I understand it was a hoax... the GNU Project seems to be still fine but the FSF is our enemy...

That said it starts to look good for Trump, the Identity Politics retards and Cancel culture Fascists and Femnazis make a compelling case to vote for Trump again. The current Impeachment process is also based on a similar lie than this one, they just took 2 half sentences cut 1000 words in between and fabricated evidence and somehow nobody goes to jail for forgery.

The only candidate that makes a good case that she doesn't support this tactics against Trump Tulsi Gabbard has no Chance to get the nomination therefor Trump will win. Well every country becomes the Politicians they deserve !!!

Yeah...comparing Trump to Stallman, not even in the same universe, much less the same species. The former being a trust-fund baby with no morals or ethical values, using mafia-style techniques and nepotism to enrich himself. Disgusting to even suggest attributing anything remotely similar to Stallman, unless you're entirely lacking of moral fiber and ethics yourself.

[azdaha]

My agenda is to contrast idea of enforced freedom to acquire software for free (as in free beer), without having to pay for it. And, that "freedom" is enforced by GPL in viral way. Who wants to take, should give/contribute. Freedom to acquire things for free is beneficial only for lazy people,... What's agenda of FSF forum warriors/supporters? To take/acquire software for free?

You might be going too far there, actually. Your "research and development" is based on "acquired things for free"; whether it's thousands of years of prior research, learning, and publishing, or the ubiquity of the open source code that helped you to become a developer in the first place. There are valid reasons, obviously, to be rewarded for your work and expertise. However, it would have to be done in a different way; either by providing a service while using the free tools/code for a company or person(s), or by creating an entirely new thing as a developer. Otherwise, you are guilty of the same thing that you accuse users and proponents of GPL to be; namely, a lazy person (developer). In case that's somehow not clear: If you are using open source software (i.e. GPL licensed) to create something on top of it, then you are being lazy for not doing it the hard way. You are being lazy and accepting something for free as the foundation of your own "work".

If, however, you feel that your work will be beneficial for others long after you stop developing, then you are glad to contribute to the advancement of human development. Whether it's on a small scale, like giving another young person the ability to learn from your contributions; or on a bigger scale, by allowing tools and technology to be built upon your work.

If everything is obfuscated and hidden to everyone but the person/company that owns it, we will be reinventing the wheel over and over again. Worse yet, companies are charging for research that had been done with public funding, freely licensed, or even completed hundreds of years ago. The GPL license is a necessity if for nothing else but to counter those same perverse actions that have been ongoing for a long time and that will continue. The stability, security, and the ubiquity of open source software in today's technological age is a testament to the importance and effectiveness of the GPL **and** its cousins, less restrictive open source licenses.

I see, well, in The Circus there is room for everyone

Getting software for free is clearly a big benefit, but I doubt I myself would had been drawn to Free Software because of that. If getting software for free was my motivation I would had chosen *BSD, which always triggered my nerd fancy more than GNU/Linux.

Software is easy to copy and modify due to its nature. Being active in Free Software movement or just using Free Software is a way to change the world for good. It is the best venue for all people in the world to build and improve something for mutual benefit. Sounds idealistic? Well, I think I have all the rights in the world to be idealistic in my man cave

Yep, some SJW people of the "Free Software Movement", fighting for extreme position of freedom (emphasis on free as in free beer) to take anything they want, would be quite nice addition to The Circus ;-)

I like, and share, the view, that Free Software is a way to change the world towards a better place. The only thing, that I'm against regarding Free Software, is the extreme leftist position/attitude of some Free Software advocates/proponents. My disagreement only applies to that extreme - these SJW people of FSF, and GPL license.

History confirms, that socialism didn't work well.

[onicsis]

Then in this hostile context, Linux fragmentation it's a good thing because, no single corporation/organization/entity can control it.

[UlisesH]

I was born only a few years before that and this current day ideology that you should treat people differently based on sex and race in the name of anything let alone "diversity" goes completely against everything I was ever taught. The same is true for the other idea that it's perfectly fine to destroy people and remove their voice if they say something you do not agree with, something Richard Stallman has now become a victim of.

Where the hell did this bullcrap come from? There are many people much older than myself that have taken on this mindset too, and to me this is pure insanity. I do struggle to understand how this idea swept though and corroded people's common logic away so easily.

Also, why are lies and misinfo perfectly allowed if as long as it's used to attack something the mob does not like?

the answer is fear. People are so afraid of being cancelled that become supporters of cancel culture to avoid drawing attention

[coder111]

Just a note. GPL is not supposed to protect developer's rights. GPL is supposed to protect USER's rights. And GPL does that perfectly.

Developer might or might not license their software under GPL. But as a user, using GPL software you are guaranteed that you have rights to modify and distribute modified software. Effectively you are guaranteed the power to control the software you are using.

I guess as a developer writing GPL software, you are also guaranteed that your software will not be misused to impinge on rights of users.

These are very powerful and useful guarantees. Whatever flaws RMS has, first I'm very grateful to him for these guarantees expressed in GPL. Second, his comment about Minsky does not defend pedophilia in any shape or form, and news media have engaged in massive libel campaign against him and have done much damage. IMO RMS should sue each news outlet that has misquoted his post and portrayed him in bad light for libel and demand compensation and retraction. Whether MIT or FSF want to fire him for his creepy/asshole behaviour is a completely separate question unrelated to this particular post defending Minsky.

You highlight some of the worse aspects of the GPL and why it is a hideous license. GPL takes away developer freedom and rights.