RMS Feels There's "A Systematic Effort To Attack GNU Packages"

[paulpach]

What he is fighting for is the right to see the code you're running, and to modify it. And for that right to be guaranteed.

Where he gets it wrong is assuming that is an actual right. Human rights are inherent to the condition of being human, such as the right to live, not looking at source code.

If someone offers to license you software, you are free to accept the offer and use the software under the terms of the license. You would only accept it if you think you are better off doing that. In that case, you have nothing to complain about: the exchange was a win for you. If you don't like the terms of the license, then you simply don't execute the trade, and you have nothing to complain about since it does not affect you at all. Either way, the fact that someone makes an offer (propietary or not) does not harm you in any way, and only expands the choices available to you.

When you license proprietary software, you do so because you want to. The minute you accept the license, you also accept that you will not get to see the source code. The author is under no moral obligation to give it to you, and you are not inherently entitled to see it, and that was established PRIOR to the exchange, nobody was deceived into agreeing to something they did not want. If this is not what you want, then simply don't license proprietary code, but don't pretend that your rights have been somehow violated.

Even if there is no open source alternative to the proprietary software in question, you are not being forced into anything. Humans lived for thousands of years without software and so can you. The fact remains that if you license it, it is because you think you are better off (you win), and you know before you license it wether you get to see the code (nobody is deceived).

[ihatemichael]

Feel free to remove any code from the kernel you use that was written by our "fascist corporate friends" and look how that works for you, hypocrite.

Those fascists wouldn't have contributed to the kernel if it weren't only because the GPL forces them to do so, legally, that's it. Do you seriously think they contribute code to the kernel because they are good human beings and they want to improve the world?

You can thank the GPL and Stallman for those contributions.

Hey, want an example? Just look at the BSDs and how little contributions they get from Apple, Sony and the other fascists.

Why are you too butthurt anyway over this comment?

You are the hypocrite.

[Serafean]

Where he gets it wrong is assuming that is an actual right.

Your opinion on this is as valid as Stallman's or mine. I do belive that I have the right to tinker with the product I own. Be it car, router, PC, coffee machine or software.

When you license proprietary software, you do so because you want to.

And that is where you are wrong. When I licence priprietary software, I do so because I have to. I never wanted to licence Word, but the world revolves around .doc. I never wanted to licence Acrobat Reader, but nothing else supports PDF forms. You might argue that I don't have to fill in the form electronically, but I guarantee you, that in this case, I really did, there was no alternative.
I don't licence drivers any more (no nvidia here), so yes, there is choice sometimes (most actually), but not always.

Serafean

[duby229]

The thing is though, I agree more with Linus Torvalds than I do with Stallman. Look at the BSDs as an example, they have tons of commercial products based on them. Huge variety of commercial products use BSD code in some way. It's rather extensive. But they don't see the code contribution that linux does.

[ihatemichael]

HATERS GONNA HATE

[sireangelus]

The only think i would say, is that if i could run a country i would made all non gpl licenses banned from my country, with 20% profit fines per day to any isv that tries to sell non- gpl software in my terroritory. Also, if someone is caught using non gpl software illegally imported, the one to be fined would still be the isv.

[Luke_Wolf]

He did clearly state NSA many years before Snowden.

You mean like everyone else who made jokes about it going back to the early 2000s, possibly even back to the 90s. If you think that any of this is new or he was the only one talking about this, you're seriously mistaken.

He predicted cellphone spionage long before Snowden.

A couple things...
1).The NSA founded in the 1960s is built all around SIGINT, and they were created to administrate the US portion of the ECHELON system which was used for intercepting things like telephone conversations
2). in 2001, The FBI hacked into what we would consider today a feature phone of a Mafia member in order to listen in on conversations to gather evidence to use against them, the court ruled in favor of the FBI in order to take down the mob.
3). About a year before Snowden the FBI spying program on cellphones was uncovered.

Anyone who was surprised by Snowden, has no clue what the NSA is; as anyone who knows, knew this was going to happen.

[MoonMoon]

Those fascists wouldn't have contributed to the kernel if it weren't only because the GPL forces them to do so, legally, that's it. Do you seriously think they contribute code to the kernel because they are good human beings and they want to improve the world?

You can thank the GPL and Stallman for those contributions.

Hey, want an example? Just look at the BSDs and how little contributions they get from Apple, Sony and the other fascists.

Why are you too butthurt anyway over this comment?

You are the hypocrite.

Actually, no, you may want to look up what the word hypocrite means. Telling people that they should do some open source work for their "fascist corporate friends" while using a kernel that is in is current state only because of open source work of those "fascist corporate friends" is a pretty good example of hypocrisy.

[MoonMoon]

The only think i would say, is that if i could run a country i would made all non gpl licenses banned from my country, with 20% profit fines per day to any isv that tries to sell non- gpl software in my terroritory. Also, if someone is caught using non gpl software illegally imported, the one to be fined would still be the isv.

So, no desktop Linux in your country? Oh, wait, actually, no Linux at all, since parts of the kernel are under other licenses, like BSD and MIT.

[paulpach]

Your opinion on this is as valid as Stallman's or mine. I do belive that I have the right to tinker with the product I own. Be it car, router, PC, coffee machine or software.

You do not own the software, you simply license it. That is, they agree to let you use it, as long as you agree to abide by some terms.

And that is where you are wrong. When I licence priprietary software, I do so because I have to. I never wanted to licence Word, but the world revolves around .doc. I never wanted to licence Acrobat Reader, but nothing else supports PDF forms. You might argue that I don't have to fill in the form electronically, but I guarantee you, that in this case, I really did, there was no alternative.

Really, no alternative? Lets ignore for a moment all the free tools that can open word docs and pdf. Humans can live without word and acrobat reader, and did so for thousands of years. You opted to license it, because for what you wanted to do, you would be better off using those tools, but you can (and many people do) live even without computers. No, you did not need them, they simply made your life easier.

Nobody forced you to get Word, you chose to license it because you decided life was easier if you had it. MS did not harm you in any way by letting you use word.