I listened to both Stallman's and Torvald's views these days and the Torvalds/OpenSource ideology makes more sense to me than Stallman's FreeSoftwareMovement.
I'd like to have a debate about this, like a "Change My View" thing.
Why isn't open source enough?
I don't get it ... I think the only important thing is that the source is open. Nothing else matters.
Why is Stallman not satisfied with that?
>>54409092
Because they can just close the source again, depending on the license.
>>54409126
Pretty much this.
Free software is a guarantee for the future. A free component will remain free for the rest of it's life, unlike an open source component.
>>54409092
>>54409227
Also, Torvald contributes under the GPL so he isn't 100 % against Free software either.
Torvalds is a big fan of GPLv2.
>>54409126
>>54409227
>>54409246
Free Software isnt sutainable in the long term, its literally comunism and we all know how comunism ends.
Also
>we are so free we literally enforce you to be free
Freedom overload.
>>54409280
>Free Software isnt sutainable in the long term
Why?
>>54409092
Stallman is a literal communist who believes money shouldn't exist and people should just "share" and have the right to snatch anyone's product as they need it. "from which according to his abilities to each according to his needs"
Because of that he believes closed-source (or "proprietary" if you will) software is unethical, which I completely disagree with. You are free to use or not use closed-source software, developers are and should remain free to make it.
>>54409280
>Free Software isnt sutainable in the long term, its literally comunism and we all know how comunism ends.
It is for certain components. Like GCC for example. It's too convenient to have it as free software.
>>54409092
because "true" freedom can't be accomplished without restricting others' freedoms so it can spread like a cancer
True freedom.
>>54409677
So free that you're writing software for others to sell
>>54409677
That devil turned into an apple.
>>54409737
>beastie
I think you mean that faggot platypus
Linus is a fucking retard and Linux has pushed back by decades any kernel that wouldn't be as prone to shitting itself (monolithic kernels suck and if you disagree then you also suck)
The only thing Linux did that was noteworthy was come first.
>>54409092
why is torvalds so autistic btw?
>>54409719
Have you ever considered that the reason people choose to use BSD like licences is because they just want to make something useful and don't care what or who uses it or makes money from it. It's about true freedom (not RMS's deluded definition).
You know, unlike Linux users with their restrictive GPL cancer that was invented by a fat retard who openly admits to having Jewish ancestry and tricked people in to copying UNIX utilites so he could put his name on and take all the credit for. It's all about ego with GPL and poor mentally challenged people infected with freetardation, it's about bullying and forcing people to do what you want and give you everything in the name of social justice.
GPL is automatically debunked.
When I take GPL code and add my own work, that work was done by me and nobody else. I own it. I created it. I should not have to open my code because the original code without my personal work is still available and anyone is free to come up with their own implementation.
>>54409910
>why is Stallman so autistic btw
FTFY
>>54409280
American education at its finest, /g/entoomen.
>>54409853
Dude, Linux powers the whole Internet practically. Everything runs on Linux. Every phone.
HURD got basic sound support in 2016. ROFLMAO
>>54409910
He's autistic about quality code, which is necessary to audit the cluster fuck that is OSS
GPL V2 >>> GPL V3
>>54409092
>Why is Stallman not satisfied with that?
Because Stallman is an autist who has outrageous and unrealistic views.
The majority of /g/ probably worships that fat faggot because he reminds them of themselves.
>>54409092
I don't really care that much about either open source or free software. Because neither are enough. I'm interested in two things: the ability to verify as much as practical that a piece of software will do what someone says it will do and no more, and a FOSS license that reserves right of commercial sale of both the licensed product and derivatives. As far as i know neither Stallman or Torvalds really cover that.
>>54409853
>monolithic kernels suck and if you disagree then you also suck
Good argument, Reddit.
Monlithic kernels allow a number of advantages, like better performance, and the only pro-microkernel argument is that "IT'S COOLER! MUH ELEGANCE!"
Monolithic kernels perform better in every measurable way.
You're worse than the fags who demand everything be written in C.
>>54409991
>uses C
>autistic about quality code
Clearly he went very very wrong somewhere.
>>54409853
Meh. Unix and C pushed programming back by decades too, so it's just following tradition.
status quo:
people are free to use any license they want, including GPL, BDS, Proprietary, or MIT licenses.
stallman's ideal """"free"""" society:
everyone is forced to use GPL or similar and must conform to his views.
>>54409092
Linus loves Free Software. But he doesn't like the extremism of Stallman. and all the "all closed source companies are evil" way of thinking.
>>54409092
Linus has a problem; he's slow in his brain when it comes to deeper thinking. He thinks the GPL restricts people. This is also what BSD fags claim, but the reality is that the GPL doesn't restrict freedom; it protects freedom.
When you release something under WTFPL or a BSD license, every company can come along, use your code (and now the bad thing) close the source and sell it back to you. In the end, the piece of code you wanted to be free, isn't free anymore. The GPL is protecting that.
The one thing that splits Linus and the FSF is the GPLv3. Some harware manufractors started to sell hardware with gnu/linux systems. They were open source, so you could look into the code, but it wasn't possible to change the system; the company resticted that. At the end the user lost his freedoms. This is why the GPLv3 was released - to protect such things. Linus doesn't like the idea, because he's in the view that freedom means "freedom of choice", the problem with "freedom of choice" is that it implies that you allow others to lock your code/system down and restrict it's usage.
>Why isn't open source enough?
Please read: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
>>54410175
>>Linus loves Free Software
Completly wrong. He actially hates free software.
Please don't post if you don't know what you are talking about.
Linus likes the idea of code-sharing - not freedom.
>>54409573
>because "true" freedom can't be accomplished without restricting others' freedoms so it can spread like a cancer
because my freedom wold infringe on your freedom
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU
Idiots will agree with him.
>>54410294
Stallmans introdution of GPLv3:
http://gplv3.fsf.org/static/release/rms_gplv3_launch_high_quality.ogg
>>54409280
pure ideology
>>54409285
You're joking right? Not anything is free anon. We are able to download this free software from the devs because they are dedicated to this work. I know they have that amazon data bullshit and all, but take for example Canonical. If Microsoft, Apple, and Canonical all made free software, there wouldn't be much to see here right?
Microsoft and Apple being ran by practicing Jews shows us that Canonical really stands out, with the way they provide their software for free. It makes you want to get behind them and donate right?
If it weren't so, it would be as >>54409280 wrote here, its fucking communism.
Have you guys even looked at stallman's actual and legitimate views he has on things? He posts them all over stallman.org
Yeah, we know he is "le epic GNU man11!!!" and all, but if you would actually read up on him you'd discover he is ass backwards, and that is the reason he has no mainstream support.
>>54409944
>implying he was fat, when he invented GPL
>>54410083
>I never programmed anything more than fizzbuzz
GPL is a guarantee of freedom.
BSD is "freedom but for as long as we benefit from it lol"
Torvalds isn't anti-freedom.
He said that making the kernel GPL was the best decision he ever made.
GPL is an ideological approach to the topic.
The anti-GPL "open source" advocacy was spawned as a crippled and more lean version of it in an attempt to gain more traction. Corporations don't like GPL and they're afraid of the GPLv3 like the devil.
>>54410376
>I consider insulting other people to be the way to prove myself right
>>54409092
Becasue Stallman only wants attention, he doesn't give a fuck about developers or software, he only cares that people know him and praise his stupid ideals.
>>54410336
>"You just don't understand our fat savior! He's fighting for your freedom!"
>>54410421
>I consider insulting other people to be the way to prove myself right
>insulting
His sarcastic comment was not an insult, you overly sensitive babby
>>54410427
The freedom of speech give you the freedom to post, but you don't NEED to post, so just don't do it if you don't know what you're talking about.
>>54410427
Shut up kid, adults are talking.
The amount of work some people (i don't know if they're hired shills or just bored /v/edditors) put into discrediting stallman is just jaw dropping.
>>54410450
>His
I can tell it's you, samefag.
Your sarcastic comment was an insult.
n. An insolent or contemptuously rude action or remark; affront.
n. Something having the effect of an affront:
n. An attack or assault.
>>54410469
Reddit-tier counter argument.
>>54409092
>Why isn't open source enough?
>Why is Stallman not satisfied with that?
I'm not sure what you're trying to ask, OP. Free software and open source are mostly the same thing.
If you want to know why Stallman insists on using the term "free software," it's because the actual issue is about liberty. It's not enough to just consider whether or not someone is able to download and hack on the source code.
>>54410500
https://youtu.be/radmjL5OIaA
Feel free to listen to him.
He still doesn't have any clue about making his ideals work on the REAL world.
>>54410563
His views are completely off.
He would stop developers to create closed source software if he could, he doesn't care about real freedom.
>>54410563
His ideas already work in the real world. GNU/Linux is the most popular server OS.
>>54410642
>my freedom is the ability to restrict people with bogus proprietary licenses that are propped up by a ridiculous overreaching copyright system
Nope.
>>54410563
>>54410642
Why does /g/ make him the savior of freedoms again?
Stallman was the potential hero, but the good is negated by his eccentric personality (if you'd like to call it that), and his lack of a practical outlook/plan for implementation of truly free software.
You think everyone in the world is just going to take a hammer to their PCs and switch to Gnu/Linux overnight?
How will software development companies will pay for the developers to make free software?
How will those companies be watched over to ensure they stay true to the ideology of free and open source software?
>>54410065
I think in future I'll license any software I write using either CC-BY or CC-BY-NC-SA, both modified with a sunset clause to revert to WTFPL after, say, 10 years from date of initial publishing.
>>54410678
>i don't have the right to own anything
Grow up kid, communism doens't work.
>>54410705
He constanly evades the question of how a dev would put foon on the table, he is completely delusional.
>>54410714
Wait, scratch the NC. Bitch of a clause. Gotta modify it to only prohibit commercial distribution. Only reason I want to use it is in the unlikely circumstance I'm running a business around selling some extremely specific software (eg firmware for a single board computer). Don't want others muscling in on my profits in that case, but I'd still want to have the source be open/libre as much as possible.
>>54410563
Watching it. He's pretty based and I agree to him.
You should all watch it to learn more about history.
I don't see why you posted this video if your view is different?
>>54410737
>not wanting to prop up copyright-driven monopolies is "communism"
No. The proprietary software companies are the ones who are communists.
>>54409092
>Why is Stallman not satisfied with that?
Because companies can abuse too laxed licenses to no ends. They can modify them, sell them and never release the changes. They can integrate them into their own closed source crapware, and give nothing back.
With GPL they are forced to share what they changed in the software. If they wish to link against GPLd libraries, their software must be GPL too.
With GPL, they either use the unmodified software, or give back to the community. With meme licenses, like BSD they are not. And this is why companies like apple love BSD goyim, who technically work for the FOR FREE.
>>54410779
>Don't want others muscling in on my profits in that case
Why? You realize that the only reason other companies would be interested in using your products at all is because they can make money off of it, right?
>>54409299
The problem is no one can build off of what you have done, unless they go through extra red tape.
Think of it in terms of science, people build of the creations and ideas of others allowing them to further refine their own and future knowledge,
>>54410232
>He actially hates free software.
Linux kernel is GPL, moron.
>>54409092
>Why is Stallman not satisfied with that?
1. It allows “bait-and-switch” schemes where you get people using your “free” software and then later suddenly start charging a premium for new versions.
in b4 “but you can just continue using the old one” and live with security holes and broken compatibility and lack of features for the rest of your life, yes
2. It allows you to release the source under restrictions, for example. “Here's the source oh but it's illegal for you to modify it” At that point, you might as well just not even have the source.
Another example is projects that are “free” but have restrictions concerning redistribution. This makes life hell for technological reasons, for example package managers / distro repositories can't legally re-host it. The ability to redistribute free software is one of the key principles behind a free software distribution and is what makes the modern Linux ecosystem possible.
3. It allows companies to take your work and unduefully profit off it. Sharing resources doesn't work if there's that one kid who comes in, takes everything for free, then leaves while spitting on the doormat. It breaks community, trust and makes people less willing to release free software.
tl;dr there are pretty good reasons to care about stronger freedom guarantees than just being open source.
>>54409280
American Indians did pretty well with communism until white people gave them plague blankets and committed genocide.
>>54410294
It's important to keep in mind that Linus is interested in getting his kernel running on as many different pieces of hardware as possible and getting as much back into mainline as possible.
Coming back to the Tivo example, the patches they submitted were good for the kernel in the long run, but the device being locked-down was still a bad thing for Tivo's customers. Linus goes on to guess that maybe Tivo had no choice, because another organization that they depended on was forcing them to lock the device down. The free software viewpoint is that we should pressure these companies to negotiate harder against stuff like this, so that they can produce devices that actually give the user freedom.
This is going to be increasingly important as IoT devices proliferate our homes. We're already seeing this in the case of IoT companies that went belly up or just discontinued something and suddenly their locked down devices became useless, leaving the user no recourse. A good example of why freedom is always important.
>>54411004
>t. brainwashed liberal
>>54411012
>This is going to be increasingly important as IoT devices proliferate our homes.
I'm not sure if IoT even has anything to do with it. You are just describing vendor-lock, which is the same bullshit no matter what context you apply it to.
>>54410890
1. software isn't science, it's a product like a swiss knife or a chair, only digital.
2. scientific research isn't free, you have to pay for books, college tuition or taxes, either way someone is paying for it.
>>54410967
So when Microsoft releases something under GPL, Microsoft loves free software - is this your logic?
>>54411077
>1. software isn't science, it's a product like a swiss knife or a chair, only digital.
it's much closer to science than to any physical product, due to the simple fact that it's literally only information.
>>54409092
I'm impressed. I though nowadays such threads were impossible on neo /g/, but there seem to be still some people here, who use their brains. Good thread OP.
>>54409280
>>we are so free we literally enforce you to be free
that's the GPLv3 philosophy, not Torvalds.
also, the Linux foundation is overflowing with cash.
>>54410068
The performance gains granted from being a monolithic kernel are found in hybrid kernels. Which is literally the only reason to have a monolithic kernel.
No, that's not at all an argument for microkernels. Microkernels are great because they are vastly more secure than either a hybrid or monolithic, maintaining it is a shitload easier, conflicts from adding code simply don't exist. The "microkernels are slow" meme is a fallacy derived from the "spaghetti code is faster than ravioli" meme. Yes it's true, but proper design, pipeline optimizations and clever re-use of functions and booleans minimizes that to very few wasted cycles, all while maintaining the advantages gained from not being a fucktard and programming like it's 1955.
Or you can half-ass it and instead of minimizing kernel mode complexity just adding in support for modules, which Linux is just now moving forward to. Great, Linux is just starting to catch up with 1985. Meanwhile, every single distro plays catchup when a hole is discovered to execute code in kernel mode instead of just throwing out the garbage kernel. Linus is a talented developer, but he's barely better than Terry the Schizo Toy OS developer.
>>54409979
x86 is used to power most home computers. That doesn't mean it's a good architecture. Hell these days x86 chips aren't even x86 because it's so fucking awful even Intel knows it. Instead it's a specially designed RISC architecture with an emulated x86 chip on the die.
>>54411112
1. not true, your fizzbuzz isn't science. People buy the executables they don't care about the source code, people buy chairs they don't care about the whole chain of production and industrial secrets used to make that a good chair.
2. irrelevant either way since information is mostly copyrighted, you can't take any scientist's book and start redistributing for free, that would take away the monetary incentive of writing informative scientific books.
>>54409092
Because you need to be able to also modify the source code and redistribute your modification
>>54411109
>something under GPL
The entire Linus project (Linux, the kernel) is under GPL. And if it wasn't GPL since the beginning it never would had success. If Microsoft wants to put some closed non GPL shit inside the kernel they can go to eat some shit.
>>54409280
free software has been surviving fine for decades now
>>54410642
Do you think “real freedom” means the ability to legally murder your neighbours, too?
>>54410866
That's the point. If I'm selling a software product (which would be an extremely rare situation and generally limited to software that's intrinsically tied to specific hardware, eg firmware) then I don't want anyone else to be allowed to take that software and commercially sell it too without my permission. I don't care if they *use* the thing to make money by whatever the software does. Just that I'm guaranteed to have the commercial distribution market cornered for a few years.
>>54411160
shut the fuck up poo in loo
arm is dead
windows is dead
your shitty architecture is dead
c is dead
go fucking kill yourself you retard, you don't know jack shit about computers or technology
>>>/v/
>>>/soc/
>>>/out/
>>54411004
More like tribal capitalism 2bh
>>54411253
>Communal sharing of goods and services
>Means of production not privately owned
Not even close to being capitalism. It is, however, the very definition of communism.
>>54411171
>that would take away the monetary incentive of writing informative scientific books.
bullshit. Scientific journals, the primary way researchers share their results, don't pay researchers a dime for their papers (the documents that are in fact a product of science. textbooks aren't research). In fact, scientists are expected to offer free work for the journals in form of reviewing papers by the other researchers. Researchers get their wage from their university (read: the taxpayers) and not the publishers of their work. The latter just profit by charging insane amounts for scientific information they did not contribute even the slightest shit to.
>irrelevant either way since information is mostly copyrighted, you can't take any scientist's book and start redistributing for free,
In a sane world private non-profit redistribution of any copyrighted work would be perfectly legal. Not that scientific work should even be under copyright, because the monetary compensation for the scientist is payed by the public, therefore the public should have a say in what happens with said work (or stup funding the scientist). The by far best way for the public to profit of his work is if there's no copyright at all attached to it.
>>54410294
What BSD version he says is the acceptable one? Cant understand him.
>>54410196
Why does "freedom of choice" means that you can lock down hardware? I don't get why Linus is against GPLv3
>>54410509
I'm sorry, I had customers. You were saying, Special Ed?
OP, consider reading http://sealedabstract.com/rants/beyond-open-source/
>>54410352
>implying he wasnt always fat
>implying he wasnt 400 pounds at birth
What is a government that works like the GPL?
>inb4 communism
>>54411298
>Researchers get their wage from their university (read: the taxpayers)
the best colleges in the world are private, research is funded by tuitions and philanthropic donations.
>because the monetary compensation for the scientist is payed by the public, therefore the public should have a say in what happens with said work (or stup funding the scientist).
based on a false premise as I showed above, not not mention, when you say "the public" you really mean the government, that's what it boils down to. If Stallman rose to power he would abolish the right of selling software without releasing the source code, he would put the police after your ass if you ever dared to sell the fruits of your work the way you decide to, and the way the user AGREES to, instead of fitting the Leader's (der Füher in German, il Duce in Italian) own world view, all of this in the name of "freedom".
>>54411435
Somalia
>>54411435
communism
>>54411338
Check >>54410294 and >>54410319
>>54411435
Shariat.
Complete with a crazed long bearded leader screaming against the less fundamental "detractors" from the one true religion.
>>54409092
Stallman is just an annoying person.
If if he WAS right (and he isn't) I would never support his opinions, just because his stupid "B-BUT I'M SO IMPORTANT !! NOTICE ME !!"
Linus has a lot of style and he his humble. RMS is such a nag..
My 2 cents as someone who maintains a quite large free software (BSDd):
I don't plan to monetize it, so I don't care if someone else does. There is a clause in there that requires people that expand or use my software in their products to link to the original material, so I get publicity from their success. Companies using my software also makes it more likely for they to commit patches and so on.
In my view if you don't plan to monetize your software then there is no reason to restrict the audience it may come to have.
The user is not entitled to have free alternatives for everything, my work has a price, and of reasons that pertain to me only that price can be very small -- just the ability to have it improved by many people that use it.
Some people feel threatened by permissive free software but they forget that they can always go back to the original software (or to it in a point in time before a license change). Permissive software doesn't kill free software.
>>54410336
You didn't make any arguments, btw.
>>54411290
>>Communal sharing of goods and services
>>Native indians
God you're fuckin stupid. There where lots of tribes that slayed each other all the time. That's basically what it has in common with communism. People that think otherwise get brutally murdered.
>>54410563
>REAL world
Key words here. Stallmans views are perfect but can only work in a perfect world, Linus views are more down to earth and reasonably compatible with the REAL world, FSF freetards are a bunch of dreamers who need stop believing their lord and saviour nonsense.
>>54409853
hello tanenbaum
>>54410168
that's communist "freedom" for you
The fun thing is, anti-freedom fags never post any actual arguments except calling stallman a faggot, annoying, etc. This just proofs that the view of these people doesn't have any value because they already have "their point of view" without taking 5 minutes to actually research, read, and educate themselves about the topic.
>>54410319
>high quality
Not flac
>>54411330
ISC license.
That license is as close to public domain as you can get while still covering your ass from lawsuits. It's short, concise, and without all the legalese of the GPL licenses.
You know how I think the GPL license got so popular? I bet it was all the FSF propaganda insisting that it was "free" and good for you. So programmers just kind of licensed their software with GPL without thinking about it, because they were told it was good. It's a literal meme license.
Personal attacks or preferences on Torvalds or RMS are counterproductive. That's the problem neo-/g/ has, arguing for or against a license without using proof or it working/not working is never in the post.
>>54410168
There are GPL-compatible licenses out there.
>>54409979
The scope of the FSF's software works is much larger than a kernel. The GCC, accompanying libs and coreutils are so insanely critical to a lot of people meanwhile the linux-libre is free as in freedom. Can you blame them for not being so worried about making the next big free kernel?
>>54409280
>we all know how communism ends
please point to me where in the textbooks you can find a license for software collapsing on top of all the software it licensed.
>enforce you to be free
it's a law in the license. Much like laws of a civil society.
>>54410336
>he is ass backwards, and that is the reason he has no mainstream support
having such retard-tier opinions should just get you a permaban desu
>>54411579
>has a lot of style and he is humble
All those autistic rants he has on mailing lists and in real life don't really agree with your view. Why do people think RMS is any worse than Torvalds? Because he's overweight? Why does this count as the merit of his work?
>>54412120
>Why do people think RMS is any worse than Torvalds?
because he's actually decent and doesn't force his views on others, if you don't like him, you can just leave, he realizes that he's not always right
>>54412180
you asked me why i think stallman is worse than torvalds and i gave you your answer
i love how freetards always block their ears and don't listen to any arguments
>>54412193
that wasn't me, anon. This is an ANONYMOUS imageboard. Anyway, commenting on your boner for his personality doesn't make his views on open source any more right or wrong. To me, if the software works to specification, the developer can be whoever they want so long as it doesn't disrupt the community related to it.
>>54412226
do you realize at least that the GPL is an oxymoron of a license?
how the fuck can a license for freedom be literally 5214 words long? free as in freedom, my ass
>>54412261
Law guarantees liberty. If the bill of rights didn't exist in the United states, citizens would not have many liberties nor the freedom to exercise them. Yes, in law you have to be able to say what freedoms cannot be infringed on to maintain them. Just like how I can't kill a man in cold blood without the law being against me. I am in freedom to do so but it is wrong.
>>54412303
don't you get what i'm trying to say? the FSF is disingenuous
it tells you you're free, but then you actually read the license and it's full of clauses
there's a license called the ISC license that's 1-2 paragraphs long, it actually works in court AND is more free than the GPL ever will be
>>54412326
The FSF is responsible for creating the precedent of software licenses that can't be infringed on by people who would just release your code in closed source or proprietary formats. The ISC License is cool (just looked at it, nice find) but it is GPL compatible and that is what gives it worth, because it withholds the rights of the creator to have credit. Legalese sucks? You're not the first one to say it. But no other institution has fought for our freedom like them.
>>54409092
> Why is Stallman not satisfied with that?
Autism, basically
>>54411778
>I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about, the post
And no, not the war part. There were plenty of warmongering Aboriginal American nations.
