How did you start hating opensource?
-
@flabdablet Yes you can, that is why there is all these silly fucking conversations about how the libraries are linked.
-
@lucas1 Then what are all these whingers whinging about?
-
@lucas1 not legally and in the FSF definition of free
-
@masonwheeler I'm working on a Shallan cosplay actually.
ETA: i probably wasn't clear. I didn't mean the conclusion in your quoted bit, I meant the later bit you didn't quote
-
@otter said in How did you start hating opensource?:
not legally and in the FSF definition of free
Incorrect. Any sufficiently motivated developer can link GPL components to non-free software at runtime using the @Weng manoeuvre.
-
-
@flabdablet Because it creates these stupid fucking discussions about how you should link. If it was properly for "for free" you should be able to use it how you want. If you wanna give code away to others there are better licenses.
Thus why I say "Freedom as we tell you".
-
@flabdablet FREEDOM! to work exactly as RMS desires
-
@Yamikuronue said in How did you start hating opensource?:
@masonwheeler I'm working on a Shallan cosplay actually.
ETA: i probably wasn't clear. I didn't mean the conclusion in your quoted bit, I meant the later bit you didn't quote
Ah, the "timeliness" part?
A few months ago, I went to a Brandon Sanderson book signing event. It was this tiny book store that whatever agent arranges these things should really have known better than to book him at. The place was packed. Beyond packed. Standing room only, we're-probably-violating-the-fire-code-here packed. Through a combination of being lucky, being pushy, and being skinny I was able to get up near the front... but right in front of me was this little girl, maybe 12 or 13 years old, with her hair dyed bright red, in a long blue dress and a blue glove on her left hand.
I had a great question in mind when he asked the audience for questions, and I raised my hand, but of course when he looked in my direction he called on Shallan. Just my luck...
-
@flabdablet Interestingly, the @weng maneuver also works on commercial components that are licensed per server and would therefore be quite prohibitive to license for dynamically scaling cluster systems.
-
@Jaloopa said in How did you start hating opensource?:
@flabdablet FREEDOM! to work exactly as RMS desires
Compared to... all the freedom that commercial licensed software gives you ?
-
This post is deleted!
-
@TimeBandit said in How did you start hating opensource?:
Compared to... all the freedom that commercial licensed software
gives youdoesn't try to claim is intrinsic to its model ?Yeah, that
-
@flabdablet said in How did you start hating opensource?:
If that were true, there would be no rationale for the existence of the patent system.
I never said it would make it impossible. Just less likely.
@flabdablet said in How did you start hating opensource?:
Yes, that's the point of free software. You can re-use it and you don't have to do it again yourself.
Free means "no license terms to obey". As soon as you impose any restriction on how I may use the software, I do not consider it free.
@flabdablet said in How did you start hating opensource?:
There exist many GPL-licensed software components for which non-GPL-licensed alternatives exist.
I didn't say otherwise.
@flabdablet said in How did you start hating opensource?:
You might just as well assert that non-viral licenses are BAD and that the existence of libraries using non-viral licenses is worse than the non-existence of them.
Actually, that's also true, and I agree. It's just that viral licenses are worse.
@otter said in How did you start hating opensource?:
Or they can use the GPL one, or they'll have motivation to write their own.
Or, someone will have already made a non-GPL library that they can use, but this scenario is less likely if a GPL library already exists.
@flabdablet said in How did you start hating opensource?:
Correct. You can't use GPL-licensed components to make non-free software.
NOTABUG_WONTFIXIf you cannot use software for any purpose as you see fit, it is not free software.
-
@lucas1 said in How did you start hating opensource?:
If it was properly for "for free" you should be able to use it how you want.
You might as well argue that if guns were properly "legal" you should be allowed to shoot people if you felt like it.
Here is the relevant part of the GPL (emphasis mine):
When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.
To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.
The GPL was designed at a time when software development as a profession was taking off in a big way, to the extent that it seemed increasingly likely that most software would end up being proprietary, closed-source and unavailable for re-purposing or learning from. The main motivation for its design was to encourage the parallel existence of a software development community built on the mutual sharing of source code. The GPL was always intended to confer the specific freedoms required to promote the existence of such a community, and to prevent the efforts of that community being free-ridden by commercial closed-source developers.
The present-day existence of a very large body of GPL-licensed code - all of which is explicitly free for anybody to use for any purpose except the construction of closed-source proprietary sofware - is evidence that it has in fact worked as designed.
Yes, the desire to create a community of free software developers is an ideology. As ideologies go, I'd rate it among the more positive. It's certainly no worse than the countervailing "fuck you, pay me" ideology underlying the closed-source proprietary software development model.
-
@otter It depends who you ask, which was my whole point.
-
@flabdablet said in How did you start hating opensource?:
You might as well argue that if guns were properly "legal" you should be allowed to shoot people if you felt like it.
Strawman bullshit. PLEASE. Or should I say "Stallman Bullshit".
-
@flabdablet said in How did you start hating opensource?:
specific freedoms
So if I create a license where you have the specific freedom to use the software as long as you give me money, and modify by up to 8 bytes, is that free software that I can proclaim all around the Internet is Free and more ethical than your shitty closed software?
-
@Jaloopa this entire argument boils down to the FSF's operative definitions. Some people call them bullshit but other people say that's the way it should be. This argument is going in circles
-
@Jaloopa I have a freedom in my software license. Which is where I am free to tell you to fuck off back to your country because I was drunk the day I was writing the license and I felt racist that day ... is that a "Software Freedom"?
-
@bb36e said in How did you start hating opensource?:
Some people call them bullshit but other people say that's the way it should be. This argument is going in circles
I think I'm just complaining about the insistence that it's free, and gives you all the freedoms you could ever want, while ignoring the fact that it actively removes freedoms it doesn't consider necessary. If it called itself something different I wouldn't have as much of a problem
-
@lucas1 That's not a strawman, because I'm not arguing against the clearly ridiculous proposition that legal gun ownership ought to confer a right to murder. However, that proposition is in exactly the same form as your claim: it uses a weaselly "common-sense" interpretation of an ambiguous term in its premise in order to draw an unjustifiable conclusion.
-
@bb36e The problem is that Richard Stallman himself made up all the rhetoric and wording to make this subject murky as fuck.
There were other licenses at the time, there was even accounts of Janior Lanier (stallman's roomie at uni) that said he was a fucking nutter and was dismayed at what he was creating.
-
@flabdablet A strawman is the definition of what you did. While ignoring everything else I had said on here so far. So yes it was.
-
@TimeBandit said in How did you start hating opensource?:
But if you can't see the difference between a remote code execution and a local escalation of privileges, you are the
Where is this difference? Are you saying that this has never been possible in Linux? Because I flat-out don't believe you.
If you show me a very short selection of Linux bugs and a longer, exhaustive list on Windows bugs and say "Look, Windows has more of this type of bug" well of course they do, you haven't shown comparable samplings!
-
@lucas1 said in How did you start hating opensource?:
@flabdablet A strawman is the definition of what you did. While ignoring everything else I had said on here so far. So yes it was.
Whatever, dude.
-
@flabdablet said in How did you start hating opensource?:
I'm not arguing against the clearly ridiculous proposition that legal gun ownership ought to confer a right to murder.
So why did you bring it up?
-
@flabdablet Whatever man. You made a ridiculous analogy and don't want to admit that I was right.
Guns kill people, sharing code doesn't.
-
@LB_ In order to make the point that @lucas1's assertion, viz
If it was properly for "for free" you should be able to use it how you want.
is equally ridiculous for exactly the same reason.
-
@flabdablet No. In almost all cases most code that is shared on the internet, that code isn't used in things like flight control systems, nuclear reactors, engine management etc. It is used for system that aren't safety critical.
Guns and firearm regulations and whether you can legally shoot a person is under much stricter laws in most countries than sharing code.
It isn't the same and thus you made a strawman.
-
@flabdablet said in How did you start hating opensource?:
If it was properly for "for free" you should be able to use it how you want
Freedom is a word with a lot of connotations. Any restriction on what you can do with something is a reduction in its freedom, therefore claiming that GPL is "free", when it only confers "specific freedoms" is bullshit. I could set up something with any cherry picked set of freedoms and claim it was free, and I would be just as right as people saying the GPL is free
-
@flabdablet Ah, okay, I see the comparison you were trying to make now. But I don't think it's a good analogy - morality and freedom are two different things. I don't often see software licenses that say "don't use this software to make weapons of mass destruction".
-
@lucas1 You used the emotive term "for free" (complete with scare quotes) in an attempt to justify a conclusion that doesn't follow from it. I used the emotive term "legal" exactly likewise in order to highlight and satirize the shallowness of your position.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWsoIwhaL5E#t=14m30s
-
@flabdablet Oh fuck off.
Free means for nothing in most people's minds. Don't be a twat. Stop playing Stallman games with terms, because it doesn't satirize anything except for Stallman and his linguistic wankery.
-
-
@flabdablet Again, playing games to sound clever.
-
@lucas1 Beats playing games to sound stupid.
-
@lucas1 said in How did you start hating opensource?:
Free means for nothing in most people's minds.
What part of "free as in speech, not as in beer" is unclear to you?
-
@flabdablet Just proved my point.
You used the emotive term "for free" (complete with scare quotes) in an attempt to justify a conclusion that doesn't follow from it. I used the emotive term "legal" exactly likewise in order to highlight and satirize the shallowness of your position.
Which means nothing. Because I think the term Free that we are arguing about has been defined by someone else like you that likes playing with language but in a more malicious sense.
-
@flabdablet Most people don't think that, and Stallman re-defined the word free for his purpose. Much like third wave feminists re-defined racists "As discrimination plus privilege".
Again this is the whole point, linguistic wankery to confuse the issue from what is the real issue. They take a completely different lexical meaning and define it to the situation. That is exactly what Stallman did.
-
@lucas1 said in How did you start hating opensource?:
Most people don't think that
Oh, right. So "free speech" is just speech I don't have to pay for. Gotcha.
-
@flabdablet Free speech is about Ethics and Human rights, Stalllman perverted the meaning to his own ideology.
-
@lucas1 Wait wait... do you think Free Software as the FSF defines it is about price?
-
@lucas1 Pffft. Don't piss me about with this bullshit ideology of yours. I have a speech to plagiarize.
-
@Yamikuronue No, he thinks he has more justification for defining what "free" means than that terrible hippie did.
-
@Yamikuronue No. I say that they muddied the waters to the point that we have stupid conversations like this.
The term open source makes a lot of sense, since the source is open to modifications.
The term free means for the majority of the population means "zero cost", the FSF re-defines it to mean "kinda open source as long as we like the license".
-
@flabdablet No stop mis-representing what I said. I said he perverted the term when it wasn't in the right context for his own agenda.
-
@flabdablet I don't have any ideology, other than to be skeptical of everything and only rely on evidence.
-
@LB_ said in How did you start hating opensource?:
New [video] formats are created to solve problems that no existing format solves acceptably
Probably, but from where I’m sitting — as someone who watches videos but doesn’t make any — it developed into a bewildering morass of different formats sometime early in this century, all of which seem to accomplish the same basic thing: allow me to play video on my computer. It very much looks like people reinvented the wheel there repeatedly largely because of what to the outsider are details.
Now, I’m not saying those details don’t matter, but what matters more to the average video watcher is whether or not you need yet another player to even watch this newest and greatest format.
-
@lucas1 said in How did you start hating opensource?:
It depends who you ask, which was my whole point.
Show me something that doesn’t.