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

[Luke_Wolf]

Wow what a hater, because you dont like one person, you want to rewirte millions of lines of code or more likely want that other people do that for you.

Except that all of those lines of code are already written, and I'm mostly waiting on the linux-shim for FreeBSD's graphic stack to land then I can make the jump to the GNU-free world (well I'll have to check on dependencies but pretty sure I'm in the clear).

To be clear this isn't the only thing making me want to jump ship to FreeBSD, but it is one of the bigger reasons.

Who is here the extremist, somebody that dont want people that use the GNU name violate its philosophy or something (if they dont agree to that, they can remove the gnu from the name in a Eyeblink, or if at least most of them dont agree they can fork it and become the new major player) or USERS that try active to not use such free software?

There's really two stances to view this from:
1). RMS is really just that much of an extremist license bigot that he would rather see GNU projects fail than to allow them to support optionally interacting with permissively licensed software.
2). RMS is seeing that the monopoly position that GNU held in Linux sphere is finally being threatened, and worst yet that this is happening on his own doorstep (emacs), so he's doing whatever he can to try to stay relevant.

Further I disagree with his philosophy and when I look around and I see people unquestionably accepting whatever Stallman has to say, even going to downright cult-levels of statements where they're saying: "The Stallman is Always Right, He is never wrong!!!1!!1!"

Am I really then such an extremist to then say: "I want nothing to do with Stallman, his people, or their software", particularly when this is far from the first time this has happened, and other times the developers were much more willing to kow-tow to his will.

Its clear, even if RMS would be a nutjob, you would be a total extremitic much bigger nutjob.

And this "I dont trust him" since when does RMS write all the code for GNU software? And since when do you have to trust someone that releases free software, its the hole (or at least on major) Point that you dont have to trust developers from free software projekts. you see the source and if somebody 3. or you sees big problems you dont use it.

I have neither the time, nor the patience to look through the GNU sources to find every instance where the FSF did something I strongly disagree with (as in the su instance), it is enough for me to know that this sort of stuff happens with some frequency and has had significant effect on the software (as in the su case), that makes me regard the rest as tainted.

Further as a developer, because GNU software is under GPL it's risky for me to even study it, because guess what? If I now go on to create something similar and I just happen to use the ideas I saw in that GPL software... it is now a derivative work.

It's much easier and cleaner for me to simply just get software from a group who doesn't have such blatant, flashing red warning signs, and at worst has a reputation for being too conservative.

[Luke_Wolf]

What hardware isn't supported yet by the BSDs?

The Radeon GPU in my desktop, and my Trinity based Laptop. I need dynamic power management otherwise they run too hot. My understanding was that the KMS linux-shim should fix this.

[drSeehas]

The Radeon GPU in my desktop, ...

Exchange it with a nVIDIA card and use the proprietary FreeBSD driver. Problem solved.

... my Trinity based Laptop. ...

I see, Laptops are still a problem.

[blackiwid]

Further as a developer, because GNU software is under GPL it's risky for me to even study it, because guess what? If I now go on to create something similar and I just happen to use the ideas I saw in that GPL software... it is now a derivative work.

So your real issue is about gpl that makes at least more sense, especialy as a developer, of course you want to be able to take source from some projects for free under the bsd lisense so that you have all freedom but you want it to take the freedom of your users. Ok thats ok thats the normal gpl vs bsd stuff.

is it more freedom to allow to take the freedom of many. I dont agree to that you seem to do. Even if it would be not more freedom then it would still be the righter thing. freedom is not the only value somebody can have. And freedom has so much viewpoints and different kinds of it taht I find it boring to talk about it to much especialy with people that want to talk about different meanings of freedom.

Except that most of the time people taht want bsd lisense often make their money with such stuff or even worse with completly proprietary software. And if you use linux because bsd suck to much at the moment ok but at least shut up and dont try to make out of GNU/Linux bsd, it is not bsd and it will not be it ever.

And to talk aobut only the gpl3 is also lieing, you hate also the gpl v2 and gpl v1 you just hate v3 more. Because all 3 have the same definition they go just version for version a step further to close gaps people found to go around the freedom definition behind it.

So then maybe dont mix it around just say you hate the gpl and go for it, if RMS dies tomorow the gpl stays and others will defend this freedom the same way rms would do. Stop personalising everytyhing, its the same with systemd, ok hate it, but stop hating the people. luckily we have strong personalities that can handle it but you could find some time weaker persons you could harm and make them suicid or something just with this mass-person hating things. And at some point its even possible that some mental ill people overinterpret such stuff and take the lives of such people.

Mass hating movements lead often to such things, lenon, dutschke... its ideas even islam haters dont personalise so much than you guys do.

[Serafean]

Exchange it with a nVIDIA card and use the proprietary FreeBSD driver. Problem solved.

Case in point... Restrict your freedom even more.

If all the software was GPL3, we would be able to actually own our hardware, i.e., hack our TVs, smartphones, cars, etc. We would be able to change its software as pleased, and to do whatever we wanted with it.

dream world... I absolutely hate the sw on my TV. Changing it would be awesome.

[drSeehas]

... it's the Android system that removes my freedom, it's the GNU heavy system that protects it. ...

LOL. Android uses a Linux kernel with GNU GPL.

[Serafean]

LOL. Android uses a Linux kernel with GNU GPL.

Android uses the linux kernel, and that is GPL. For userspace, Android guidelines state they prefer Apache 2.0 licence. And AFAIK all the google play stuff is closed (somebody correct me if I'm wrong). It does remove your freedom, because the final ISV has no incentive to publish their modifications.

[drSeehas]

Android uses the linux kernel, and that is GPL. For userspace, Android guidelines state they prefer Apache 2.0 licence. And AFAIK all the google play stuff is closed (somebody correct me if I'm wrong). It does remove your freedom, because the final ISV has no incentive to publish their modifications.

My point is: Android shows GNU GPL doesn't protect freedom.

[blackiwid]

LOL. Android uses a Linux kernel with GNU GPL.

The linux kernel uses a modified GNU GPL version without the "or later" clause, if it would be not the case and it would be GPL3 Android would look pretty different.

[PreferLinux]

Android uses the linux kernel, and that is GPL. For userspace, Android guidelines state they prefer Apache 2.0 licence. And AFAIK all the google play stuff is closed (somebody correct me if I'm wrong). It does remove your freedom, because the final ISV has no incentive to publish their modifications.

Who wants their garbage anyway? I'll stick with stock Andorid any day.

The linux kernel uses a modified GNU GPL version without the "or later" clause, if it would be not the case and it would be GPL3 Android would look pretty different.

No it wouldn't, because it would still be licensed under the GPL2 as well as any later version. And the "or later" clause is the non-standard part anyway, not the lack of it.

If the kernel was under the GPL v3, the only difference is that it would be easy to replace the kernel. And on many phones, it already is easy. So I don't see that it would make much difference at all anyway.