-
 KDE-Apps.org Applications for the KDE-Desktop 
 GTK-Apps.org Applications using the GTK Toolkit 
 GnomeFiles.org Applications for GNOME 
 MeeGo-Central.org Applications for MeeGo 
 CLI-Apps.org Command Line Applications 
 Qt-Apps.org Free Qt Applications 
 Qt-Prop.org Proprietary Qt Applications 
 Maemo-Apps.org Applications for the Maemo Plattform 
 Java-Apps.org Free Java Applications 
 eyeOS-Apps.org Free eyeOS Applications 
 Wine-Apps.org Wine Applications 
 Server-Apps.org Server Applications 
--
-
 KDE-Look.org Artwork for the KDE-Desktop 
 GNOME-Look.org Artwork for the GNOME-Desktop 
 Xfce-Look.org Artwork for the Xfce-Desktop 
 Box-Look.org Artwork for your Windowmanager 
 E17-Stuff.org Artwork for Enlightenment 
 Beryl-Themes.org Artwork for the Beryl Windowmanager 
 Compiz-Themes.org Artwork for the Compiz Windowmanager 
 EDE-Look.org Themes for your EDE Desktop 
--
-
 Debian-Art.org Stuff for Debian 
 Gentoo-Art.org Artwork for Gentoo Linux 
 SUSE-Art.org Artwork for openSUSE 
 Ubuntu-Art.org Artwork for Ubuntu 
 Kubuntu-Art.org Artwork for Kubuntu 
 LinuxMint-Art.org Artwork for Linux Mint 
 Arch-Stuff.org Art And Stuff for Arch Linux 
 Frugalware-Art.org Themes for Frugalware 
 Fedora-Art.org Artwork for Fedora Linux 
 Mandriva-Art.org Artwork for Mandriva Linux 
--
-
 KDE-Files.org Files for KDE Applications 
 OpenTemplate.org Documents for OpenOffice.org
 GIMPStuff.org Files for GIMP
 InkscapeStuff.org Files for Inkscape
 ScribusStuff.org Files for Scribus
 BlenderStuff.org Textures and Objects for Blender
--
-
 KDE-Help.org Support for your KDE Desktop 
 GNOME-Help.org Support for your GNOME Desktop 
 Xfce-Help.org Support for your Xfce Desktop 
--
openDesktop.orgopenDesktop.org:   Applications   Artwork   Linux Distributions   Documents    LinuxDaily.com    Linux42.org    OpenSkillz.com    Open-PC.com   
Artwork
News
Groups
Knowledge
Events
Forum
People
Jobs
Register
Login

-
- Group .- Group members (14) . 

No FSF!


Free Software
nognunognu
Description:

FSF isn't freedom.

FSF is fanaticism.

Homepage:http://
Members:14
Comments:36
Created:Nov 21 2009
Changed:Nov 28 2009
Readability:readable for everybody
Membership:everybody can join

Invite people to join
Join group
Activate message notification



-

 And the alternative is...?

 
 by d1337r on: Nov 23 2009  
d1337rd1337r

Can you tell me the name of any GNU alternative that does allow you to open your source code, but does not allow proprietary companies like Microsoft use it?


Reply to this

-

 Re: And the alternative is...?

 
 by nognu on: Nov 23 2009  
nognunognu

We need no alternative. Freedom is guaranteed by the many people who make free software, and not by a unique organization.

GNU wants to get the copyright of software that's published at their platforms. Why? Because they want control.

And they want control about the definition of free software. I don't trust in dictatorial institutions!

No, GNU isn't free software. We all are free software!


Reply to this

-
.

 More than 4 freedoms

 
 by aNordal on: Nov 27 2009  
aNordalaNordal
Home

True. As Stallman himself said it (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8249207225383797652&ei=GuIPS_uuDoGe-Aaagcm5DQ&q=Richard): «Freedom is something much bigger than having a choice between a few fixed options.» and «Freedom means not having a master.»

I don't want my software to forever be restricted to the 4 freedoms of the GPL. However, copyleft is probably our strongest protection against proprietary businesses. How about time limited GPL protection?


Reply to this

-

 Re: One computer freedom

 
 by RyanMcCoskrie on: Jul 22 2010  
RyanMcCoskrieRyanMcCoskri e
KGuitar, Virt16
Home

There is one computer freedom.
That is the freedom to do as you want with your computer.

Stallman's software freedoms are simply facets of this one freedom.


Reply to this

-

 Re: And the alternative is...?

 
 by nognu on: Nov 23 2009  
nognunognu

And respect of publishing: We don't need GNU to publish. We need a free license. The GPL is one of them, but not the only one. (But others are also good.)

Use the free license you want and forget about GNU.


Reply to this

-

 Re: Re: And the alternative is...?

 
 by TheRob on: Nov 23 2009  
TheRobTheRob
Home

haha! youre funny man

\\\\\\\"life sucks, get a f***ing helmet alright!\\\\\\\" -Denis Leary
Reply to this

-
.

 Re: Re: And the alternative is...?

 
 by Shinobiteno on: Nov 27 2009  
ShinobitenoShinobiteno

I dont understand this.
There always been "public domain" license, which is an absence of license. Any software which is in public domain can be manipulated, renamed, stolen authorship, relicensed, taken into closed source. The problem is, this does not prevent anyone from claiming this code, joining and starting to make money out of this as if it was his own. Such software will keep microsoft and any similar monopolistic license and patent lovers on top. It helps them. If this is the sort of freedom you promote, you can happily start writing and publishing using this. You will never be credited and you work will be stolen by some Bill and integrated into his OS. It will produce anarchy-like freedom like in Zoo cage - a conglomirate of several mighty grunts which keep everyone down by the law of brute force. And if you want to prevent this, you have to have similar force, but which is OPEN to you AS LONG AS YOU are OPEN to it. Which in essence is GPL(v3).

Just fyi, there is zlib and BSD-like licenses, whose only restriction is to keep the authorship bound to original author, along with this note. But they do not prevent code lockdown/integration/assimilation(is this your code? rly? can you prove it?). MS-like systems profit from BSD code no way less than from public domain/licenseless code.

Richard Stallman is an exceptionally altruistic human, who cares about future and who understands importance of informational technology.If it wasnt Stallman, we'd already be paying huge licensing fees for the products we dont really need, but which have placed themself as life-essentual, and which spy and control us without any possibility for us to fight back or even to DETECT it.

You have played Valves Portal or Bullfrogs Syndicate Wars? This are good examples.

So please study the subject before you issue such claims. Im proud to have linux in my router, which come with GPL license; and in my Toshiba 42" TV, which has GPL license drawn on 107 cm screen.

Because only if you KNOW and can PROVE, you can be safe. Trust is a weakness.


Reply to this

-

 Re: Re: Re: And the alternative is...?

 
 by nognu on: Nov 27 2009  
nognunognu

I didn't say that we need other licenses. GPL2 and similar licenses are good.

However, we don't need the FSF as organization to guarantee that there is freedom. Freedom is guaranteed by the license that the programmer applies to his programs.

FSF seems to me to feel offended because they can't control everything what's free software. Only their own position is right.

Example: When you want to write software for the GNU project, you have to give away your copyright entirely to the FSF who will have absolute control and have the possibility to do what they want with the code. Almost all other big open source projects don't require to give away your copyright entirely but only to license it under the license of the code.

Example: The discussion about the names "Linux" or "GNU/Linux" shows that FSF feels offended. They think that they, and only they, _are_ free software. But free software is much more. FSF wants to claim to represent all free software, but that's simply not true. Positions in the free software community are more pluralistic than FSF wants to believe.

This are signs of fanaticism. It is dangerous to give control to a unique organization. Don't trust in FSF! It isn't the FSF that guarantees freedom, but the many developers who release their software under free licenses. Only this pluralism guarantees freedom.


Reply to this

-

 Re: Re: Re: Re: And the alternative is...?

 
 by Shinobiteno on: Nov 27 2009  
ShinobitenoShinobiteno

GPL3 is much better, as it makes sure no technical measure would prevent running same modified code on same hardware.

I dont understand you regarding the GNU project. Yes, if you write for GNU project(gnu toolchain) and your patches get accepted, your code becomes part of gnu project(isn't it something you wanted?) and you,and information on your patch, are added to the list of authors. It would be same is you writing for KDE or GNOME project. You are writing for them, dont you? You dont loose your authorship to your patch, but you loose the possiblity to OWN, since it OWN equals PREVENT. And I dont see any point to PREVENT other people from using code, unless: 1) you want to keep it only for yourself. 2) you want to sell it.

GPL prohibits code trade(code copy for the purpose of making money and preventing others to do so), but explicitly allows coding for money.
Thats right, "intellectual property" as some sort of patenting several bytes is disallowed. But it does not remove ownership or copyright as an author. So if anycorp integrates GPL code written by YOU, they violate YOUR copyright, and FSF can help protect you, because they are authors of GPL. Big OPEN Brother. If you dont accept this, there are Creative Commons licenses(CC), one of which is similar to GPL, BUT if someone brakes it, YOU will be there alone. Personally I cannot image the author of USB input patch go on microsoft alone, just because they have copied his code. He wont win, bcs he is too small.

Speaking on GNU project, if you dont want to implement it as a patch, you can make it your own stand alone project and it will exist as a separate entity of open code. Which can make into other open code at any time, thats the sense of being open.

Regarding GNU/Linux thing is whole different story. GNU is "a much bigger project - as Linus once said", yet they could not implement the kernel, which is much smaller project but no less important. GNU is a toolchain, Linux is kernel. You can have a Linux kernel with BSD toolchain, or BSD kernel with GNU toolchain. Or Hurd kernel with GNU toolchain. I personally dont understand why linus separates linux from GNU, but its his right because he IS the author.

BTW if you would implement linux kernel with BSD toolchain, it would be BSD/linux. Since BSD has kernel and toolchain with matching names, it is refered simply as BSD. =)


Reply to this

-

 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And the alternative is...?

 
 by urwald on: Nov 27 2009  
urwaldurwald

No, it's not the same to contribute to GNU than contribute to KDE etc.

GNU requires you to give your copyright (the right to reproduce the software) away to the FSF. The FSF than licenses the code under for example the GPL. (And if FSF would want this, they could also license it under another license or sell it!) You are loosing all rights - that means that even yourself can't reproduce the code you've written under the license you want. If, for example, you want to license it _additionally_ to GPL also in LPGP, CC or whatever, you can't do this anymore because you don't earn anymore the copyright. You must ask FSF to do it.

In KDE and almost all other projects, that's very different. The code always stays your copyright. You can always license your own code _additionally_ under another license. When you contribute for example to KDE under the LGPL and later you want to use your own code in another project (that has BSD license or CC or even commercial), you can do this, because it is still your code.

Even if you don't make software for GNU directly, there are risks. I would never put "GPL 2/3 or any later" at my code, but only "GPL 2/3". The additional "any later" means, that everybody can use the code under whatever FSF releases as GPL 4, 5... So FSF has the power to decide the content, and they _can_ put there what they want. Another question is if they do, I also can't imagine that they will make GPL 4 a public domain license or a commercial one. However, IF they do it, you can't do anything against this if you've licensed at "GPL 2/3 and any later". - I don't feel good if others can decide what's done with my code. So I always put "licensed under GPL 2/3" to my code, and NOT any later. I want to decide myself under which license my code is available, and I don't trust in FSF to do this for me!!!


Reply to this

-

 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And the alternative is...?

 
 by urwald on: Nov 27 2009  
urwaldurwald

Furthermore, I don't like organizations that tell me what I HAVE to do because they think it is right. FSF claims that we should use of the these linux distributions: http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html

Do you use one of them?

That's what I mean with fanaticism. I will support free software, but not fanaticism.

And I don't like when FSF speaks in the name of "_the_ free software", because they represent only a little part!


Reply to this

-
.

 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And the alternative is...?

 
 by Shinobiteno on: Nov 28 2009  
ShinobitenoShinobiteno

I have never published code directly to FSF, so Im not informed that FSF removes you as author from your work or implements GPL license differently or that you cant relicense your own work later to other free license. But I also never met the case where person would like to do his code as GPL for only purpose for others to debug it and then close it,..

It would be nice if you would provide links to licensing for comparsion, FSF vs KDE. I searched, but was unable to find the infos. :(

Besides GNU is very old and I dont expect them to change freedom protection. All 3 licenses have constantly improved it. See also http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html, paragraph 14.

Yes, Im aware of gNewSense(as result of Debian including binary blobs into mainsteam) and UTUTO. They are both awesome.

Personally I would switch to them or use my current ones(Debian, Arch) if:

1) I wouldnt be in need of accelerated hardware OpenGL v3+(Ati did something in that direction, but seems to abadon that, Novel does FOSS ati drivers; shame on ATI!). Nvidia at least does it properly, but everything is closed down for the reason their driver is crossplatform and releasing it for linux would mean opening it for windows. Which is kind of weak explanation :/ I still would buy opensource accel. 3D card, if it emerges.

2) Flash. Gnash does something, albeit with swfdec. But the guiltiness lies on Google(owners of youtube) for not keeping flash version to at least minimum supported by gnash(7 or 8). And I await W3 to include capabilities similar to flash in upcoming open standart which would eliminate the need for it(HTML5 afaik, not sure).

(3) Im not using Wifi, but some reported issues with broadcom-based devices. Broadcom simply refused opening them. You know, they like to spy on you and make you enjoy bugs.

As you see BOTH scenarios share something similar: Im forced to use them, because they have placed themself in monopolistic position. One in 3D, currently no alternative, other in Web2.0, currently no alternative.

But if we would take fair market, I would use opensource for the reasons I mentioned in previous post.



-

 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And the alternative is...?

 
 by nognu on: Nov 28 2009  
nognunognu

Respective to GNU: Look at the copyright files. Most of them have "(c) FSF". At most other projects, it's "(c) MY NAME" ;-)

When you don't use one of these extra free distributions, you're evil, aren't you? At least in the thoughts of FSF. Doesn't matter that something doesn't work, it's more important to do what FSF says. That's fanatic.



-

 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And the alternative is...?

 
 by tomatz on: Nov 28 2009  
tomatztomatz

Quote:

'FSF claims that we should use of the these linux distributions: http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html'


LOL

Wtf(udge) is that all about??? Whats their problem with being slightly normal???


Funny tho XD



-
.

 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And the alternative is...?

 
 by Fri13 on: Dec 4 2009  
Fri13Fri13

Quote:
I personally dont understand why linus separates linux from GNU, but its his right because he IS the author.


Because Linus did not want to GNU to maintaint Linux OS but keep it's mainting on his hands.

Quote:
BTW if you would implement linux kernel with BSD toolchain, it would be BSD/linux. Since BSD has kernel and toolchain with matching names, it is refered simply as BSD. =)


No, it would not be BSD/Linux. It would be Linux OS with BSD userland tools. Just like GNU/Linux is Linux OS + GNU development tools = development platform.

The Linux kernel is the operating system. Not a kernel only. Linux is monolithic kernel like FreeBSD, NetBSD, DragonBSD and OpenBSD. Monolithic kernel is complete operating system in kernel space. While microkernel is just a kernel what has removed all other OS parts to user space as own servers.

Linux is not a microkernel. GNU has own operating system called Hurd. Hurd is not a kernel but operating system what has own kernel called GNU Mach and it is a microkernel. Hurd is Microkernel + OS servers like Minix and other server-client operating systems. It is not monolithic operating system like Linux.

The whole GNU/Linux is just a RMS's propaganda to get fame from Linus OS. Linus did something what RMS or GNU project never could do. GNU is still fighting to get Hurd working even on basic level.

People does not understand the operating systems technical structures, how they are build and what is their history. They do very simple mistake by believing that all kernels are same kinds and operating system is kernel + something else. Because they do not want to see the simple truth but they want the operating system to be something mystical, like a "black box" what is unknow. Or the operating system would be the software what you see on the monitor.

What is Linux and GNU/Linux?
http://tinyurl.com/532kb8
http://tinyurl.com/mum9x
http://tinyurl.com/ngarn8
http://tinyurl.com/qhuhg
http://tinyurl.com/3uaq48
Reply to this

-
.

 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And the alternative is...?

 
 by Fri13 on: Dec 4 2009  
Fri13Fri13

And just to remind... Sometimes GNU is very twisted by their own ideas. They want freedom, but you can not offer freedom if you do not like the truth and you hide the truth.

GNU has twisted technological truth and does not care about standards. You can notice it very easily when comparing standard UNIX uname program what is found on all other Unix systems and then compare the GNU version of uname program. If you fail to notice the propaganda what they want to spread, read this:

http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-users@it.canterbury.ac.nz/msg21956.html

The GNU does not care about truth. They can not so on deliver the freedom, because real freedom is based to truth. Actions to hide the truth, is path to the slavery and control.

What is Linux and GNU/Linux?
http://tinyurl.com/532kb8
http://tinyurl.com/mum9x
http://tinyurl.com/ngarn8
http://tinyurl.com/qhuhg
http://tinyurl.com/3uaq48

-
.

 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And the alternative is...?

 
 by Shinobiteno on: Dec 4 2009  
ShinobitenoShinobiteno

Although I appreciate the informations you gave, I must admit there was nothing new to me. Kernel is critical OS processes like sheduling, semaphores and conflict resolution, resources management and IO usually running in zero ring if permitted by cpu architecture or via emulation; and all other stuff running in other, less privileged space.

The whole idea of separation based on weither kernel modules are linked at compile time or at runtime using dedicated mechanisms is not worthy any attention. If you compile it runtime and know what you will need, the whole house will run much faster compared to runtime detection and management, because there is not much to deside and manage at the time of operation. Sometimes that can be very critical, google for windows nt video driver perfomance trouble. On the contrary, if you dont know what hw will "suddenly appear", mono may not run at all.This are simply different concepts which bring different results, none of them is right. Linux has a built-in possibility of runtime kernel module attachments, so its much more hybrid. Word which basically means "it is what you want it to be". Go forth, strip it of all modules and add hardware detection and attachting logic and you have a micro kernel.

If I allow myself to cut down all that from what you said above, the only reasoning that is left is: GNU is bad, GNU wants to control you, GNU wants to restrict you to their licenses.
Fine, I have no problem with this, write your own license, maintain it, define rights protection. I wish you very much luck with this(no sarcasm). There were a lof of attempts to do so and they still persist. Whole of which results in open systems being constantly held loosing, underdeveloped crap or important parts of them going proprietary or no longer developed.

This is the situation which GPL is designed to prevent. Just because the technology is MUCH bigger thing with much much wider impact radius on the whole society than patented child bike. Googlevideo "revolutionOS".

Linus is not a chief of linux kernel, which he said to his indian collegues in film "the code"(googlevideo). He is the original author and highly respected professional. GNU slash Linux issue is also covered there with interviews from Stallman and Linus. FSF is an organization devoted only to prevention source close-down, because of role information plays in this age. I mean, before trying to accuse someone, why not put yourself into his shoes and understand his reasoning? Does Stallman drive ferrari or runs slavery sect? Does he get payed for what he does? Does he appretiate GNU put infront of Linux for what he has done and still does(he has a blog & rss feed btw)? Definate yes from me. GNU is evil, it will steal your source, it will close it down and earn money, it will enslave whole planet. The whole discussion in this group is just as pathetic as its name. Feel free to start "Not-so-free Software Foundation".

FYI, no, I'm not RMS and not working with him, not even slightly.



-

 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And the alternative is...?

 
 by Fri13 on: Dec 4 2009  
Fri13Fri13

Quote:
The whole idea of separation based on weither kernel modules are linked at compile time or at runtime using dedicated mechanisms is not worthy any attention.


Seems you are making the typical error by just mistaking the binary level modularity to the architechture level modularity.
The microkernel modules, called OS servers. Are part of the operating system. But their modularity is on binary and architecture level.
Monolithic kernel modules are part of the kernel as well, but their modularity is only on binary level, not on architecture level.
You can compile Linux OS to use some of the parts (usually device drivers) as modules, as you know. They are own files on filesystem. They does not work alone at all.
The module is loaded by the Linux when it's functions are needed, but when it is attached, it works exactly same way as it would work as if it would not be separated at all.
The module of monolithic kernel is still tightly integrated to the kernel, like it would be case the whole OS still being a one giant binary blob. The modularity of monolithic kernel just gives some advantages. Like keeping memory usage for the OS smaller (we are talking kilobytes here) and you can get different OS functionalities easily, without needing to reboot computer and select other image. But just loading and unloading OS functions in the fly. None of the kernel space code belongs to the OS when it is about monolithic kernels, was it modular or not.

Quote:
If I allow myself to cut down all that from what you said above, the only reasoning that is left is: GNU is bad, GNU wants to control you, GNU wants to restrict you to their licenses.


If you would not try to make assumptions, you would understand. But because seems you want just to believe what you just wrote, you make just mistakes.

Quote:
Linus is not a chief of linux kernel


Hah... Linus still leads the Linux development. He just does not write so much code to it than in the beginning on 90's. He's "generals" does big part of the decicions but Linus makes biggest main decicions, like what scheduler the OS will use, when the wanted filesystem gets to the stable branch and so on. Otherwise he just manages other people and represents the Linux.
If you even follow the Linux mailinlists, you can not even think about saying that Linus is not a chief. I usually hate metaphors on techinical discussion, but. Saying Linus is not a chief of Linux development, is like saying Barack Obama is not president of the united states because he does not do all the work what drives US development.

Quote:
GNU slash Linux issue is also covered there with interviews from Stallman and Linus.


Yes it is, Linus takes politically correct discussion while RMS takes the religional GNU attention for it.
That still does not change the fact that monolithic kernel, like Linux, SunOS, FreeBSD (any BSD) are operating systems. Linus knows that very well. And it is the mainpoint even the legendary Linus vs Andrew S.Tanenbaum discussion, long before RMS even noticed that Linux gets the attention what GNU's own OS should have.

Quote:
FSF is an organization devoted only to prevention source close-down, because of role information plays in this age. I mean, before trying to accuse someone, why not put yourself into his shoes and understand his reasoning?


Seems you fail to even understand the whole GNU/Linux idea what RMS is trying to get people believe. RMS does not care technological truth. He does not care how the technology works. If you follow more closely the RMS's speeches about GNU/Linux and you compare those to the techinical information about OS, you only notice that there is a religion affecting the GNU/Linux judgement, not truth.

Quote:
Does Stallman drive ferrari or runs slavery sect?


Nice try... Tell what ferrari has about GNU/Linux? Nothing. Or are next trying to compare Linus and RMS about how Linus has a own sport car? Or is your next approach attempt to link RMS example to Ghandi? please continue.

Quote:
Does he get payed for what he does?


No he does not. RMS even left his job to focus on GNU project. He lived long times on the university (so he got paid by that way) and other places. He even grows his own food and so on. But that is nothing more to do with the GNU/Linux naming propaganda than just proofing that RMS drives pure ideology for GNU/Linux, not technical view because it would proof him wrong.

Quote:
Does he appretiate GNU put infront of Linux for what he has done and still does(he has a blog & rss feed btw)?


Simply yes. If you follow any of his speeches about GNU and Linux. He wants that the Linux is called as GNU/Linux because they have used GNU's tools and the Linux does not work alone (none of the operating systems work alone, application programs needs a system programs, software libraries and so on to work, not just the operating system)
If RMS would drop all ideology away, he would see the truth that GNU has nothing to do with the Linux. The only reason call Linux as GNU/Linux, is to be calling all othet software as well with GNU/ prefix if they use gcc, emacs or they even link to the GNU software. That would mean we would have a GNU/Audacity, GNU/KDE plasma desktop, GNU/Firefox, GNU/Inkscape and so on for all software what does not belong to the GNU project (like Gnome and GIMP) and needs some reasons the GNU software. Problem is just that Linux does not need GNU software even then. All the other software top of the Linux OS needs GNU software. GRUB is not a reason to call Linux as GNU/Linux, because it's same idea as calling GNU with prefix of motherboard or processor manufacturers name. Like Intel/Asus/GNU/Linux. Or even to be more accurate, adding users electricity company as prefix for there because the GNU software would not work at all without electricity, would it? I dont think so. Linux is not using any GNU software to be working OS. That is just a pure technical fact. And if even wanted to go to the theory what is most important software for enduser. It would end up that Firefox, Gnome or KDE SC, OpenOffice, Amarok and so on are more important software for them. Those softwares are what they use, what they see on the screen. And many times there is 0% of GNU software what they see on their screen.

Quote:
The whole discussion in this group is just as pathetic as its name.


It is not so pathetic at all as the GNU/Linux propaganda. Do you believe that the person who lies to you, can offer you a true freedom? Just think it about any other context. Because that is the one biggest ways to control people. Hide the truth behind nice words and ideas. Getting people to trust something what does not exist. And when they believe so, you can tie them to do almost anything what you want. Because so easily people will mistake the teachings and ideas to the person who says them.

ps. I like a lot what RMS has done. I could be counted as fan of his. But that does not mean I should stop using my own brains and trust everything what he says/writes. I give lots of credit for GNU project and RMS itself. But only for the stuff what they have done. Without GNU project, it is possible that Linux would never be so "successfull" OS. But same time thanks to the GNU, not getting their own OS working, Linus started own OS and shared it, even that after a while he relicensed it with GNU's GPLv2 instead keeping his own license on it. Thanks for RMS at all to making the GPL, it is a create license. But same time, RMS (and GNU) gots too much credit for the free software. Because free software did exist long before RMS even started the GNU project or was student in MIT. The software was in first place free. Students and corporations shared the code, they developed it. But still, thanks to RMS about GNU, he/they could save that freedom and maintain the idea for this century. Without allowing the commercial bad sides to remove free software from history books. But bad thing is, too many people is ready to erase that part of history and replace it with GNU and RMS. And RMS or GNU people are not even TRYING to keep people aware about that. They want the credits of free software as they see it. And they want the credit of the Linus Torvalds started OS, what is on these days usually called as Linux kernel. Same time as they tries to get credit of work what they did not do, they shoot themself to foot and they slow down themself.

I am philospher myself and I really like the ideas of GNU and work what RMS has done. But "GNU/FSF popes" usually forgets that world is not always ready to wisdom. People need to do the mistakes to learn from them. The change comes from the people own needs to want the change, not by forcing to it and preaching about it on all the times. Thats why the open source movement has got bigger and grown faster than free software ideas. Because they do not try to force people for it. They gives closed source fans to live their lives and do their mistakes. And slowly just showing the good sides of open source to them until the understand the knowledge what open source is about. And open source tries not make devils of existing technologies. They just knowledge the problems in them and they offer a solution if they have such to offer.

What is Linux and GNU/Linux?
http://tinyurl.com/532kb8
http://tinyurl.com/mum9x
http://tinyurl.com/ngarn8
http://tinyurl.com/qhuhg
http://tinyurl.com/3uaq48

-

 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And the alternative is...?

 
 by nognu on: Dec 5 2009  
nognunognu

Quote:
> The whole discussion in this group is just as pathetic as its name.

It is not so pathetic at all as the GNU/Linux propaganda.


Yes, that's true. But the religious defenders of FSF doesn't even notice...



-
.

 Re: Re: Re: Re: And the alternative is...?

 
 by Fri13 on: Dec 2 2009  
Fri13Fri13

Quote:
You are loosing all rights - that means that even yourself can't reproduce the code you've written under the license you want. If, for example, you want to license it _additionally_ to GPL also in LPGP, CC or whatever, you can't do this anymore because you don't earn anymore the copyright. You must ask FSF to do it.


GPL does include good parts of the copyright, still being copyleft license. You do not loose rights to your code at all. You can relicense your code with other license if you want. But you can not relicense the others code. You can code 50 000 LoC's and after few years when others have extended it to 500 000 LoC's, you can grab the code what you wrote (50 000) and relicense it if wanted. But you can not take back the code anymore what you have once licensed under GPL. But you can then relicense the copy of that 50 000 LoC's code with other and all modifications for that code would be under that license.

You always maintain the copyright to the code what you license under GPL. If no one ever downloads your binary (or your source), you can always relicense it with closed one and no one can ask the source code. FSF never owns your code at all.

What is Linux and GNU/Linux?
http://tinyurl.com/532kb8
http://tinyurl.com/mum9x
http://tinyurl.com/ngarn8
http://tinyurl.com/qhuhg
http://tinyurl.com/3uaq48
Reply to this

-

 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And the alternative is...?

 
 by urwald on: Dec 3 2009  
urwaldurwald

Sorry, you haven't read my text. Please read it again. In short:

In one part you are right: The GPL is a license that doesn't prevent you as the copyright holder to to what you want with the code.

But: FSF want to have your copyright IF you contribute to the GNU project (and only in this case.)

So: If you contribute to KDE under GPL, you still have your copyright. If you want to contribute to GNU, you have to give away your copyright to the FSF before your contribution is accepted. And that's not an open behavior!


Reply to this

-

 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And the alternative is...?

 
 by Fri13 on: Dec 4 2009  
Fri13Fri13

Well, it is FSF's own wish to do so if it is so. And still developer is free to denied it. But I must admit it is not good idea than legal way to get FSF offer legal situations then. Free? Yes, not free? No.

What is Linux and GNU/Linux?
http://tinyurl.com/532kb8
http://tinyurl.com/mum9x
http://tinyurl.com/ngarn8
http://tinyurl.com/qhuhg
http://tinyurl.com/3uaq48

-

 Stallmann wants control GNOME

 
 by nognu on: Dec 15 2009  
nognunognu

Stallmann wants now also control what GNOME developers are allowed to publish and what not. He don't like some of their blogs and wants that the GNOME project forbids this:

http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2009-December/msg00049.html

Well, that is what Stallmann understands under "Free speech": You may only say what Stallmann thinks.

However, GNOME don't want to follow Stallmann. Some people consider to vote on GNOME's membership to GNU and want to leave the GNU project:

http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2009-December/msg00055.html

GNOME, fight for your right!!!


Reply to this

-
.

 Re: Stallmann wants control GNOME

 
 by izento on: Dec 16 2009  
izentoizento
home

Stallman controls GNOME
and they will never seperate.
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2009-December/msg00173.html

And as Stallman says in a previous mail:
"We found GNOME to fight KDE"


Reply to this

-
.

 Re: Stallmann wants control GNOME

 
 by Shinobiteno on: Mar 3 2010  
ShinobitenoShinobiteno

Ugh, its been a while since I posted to this group. Fri13 (sorry cannot reply to your post, no reply link), I hope you can still read my comment.

So you are saying Stallman is preventing freedom, because he prevents sheep jumping off the fence, walking away from the ranch, limiting choice to staying inside, telling lies about wolves(yes god lied to man, didn't he?).

Anyway this is a reaction of the GNOME founder:
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2009-December/msg00102.html

The truth is RMS limit is freedom, and Miguels freedom means a limit. We should limit ourselves to limit our freedom. No, everyone should be free to do what he want, hey gimme my gun!

A wolf will always tell sheep, they need each other, until another wolf joins and they three carry out "democratic" decision, whats for the dinner. Keeping opensource software as a sheep for proprietary wolves, way to go Miguel!

Someone didn't understood something I think. Opensource isnt addition to proprietary in form of a meat. It is self-proficient, concurrent, different form of IT, that separates information from property. You are viewing software in categories of public and private property. You cannot apply this to information. It isn't wolf to sheep relation like many want it to see. It is human to dinosaur relation. MS, soon to be found in museums. Very possibly together with BSD, since a)great part is eaten-out(and being eaten-out) by macosx b)BSD people worrying about blobs recently. Peaceful coexistence and sharing, Blob the wolf says.

From all my experience prior to linux, I have seen usable software that is: closed source, proprietary, free. Choose any two of three. The nice open projects as that either get consumed by the time they are usable, or are kept in some form that is only usable either for internal-use-only and/or with payed closed additions. Opensource does not belong to this!

We even have this awesome dual form of light/opensource // premium/proprietary for several project. Something very weird and stupid. Do fix our bugs for us for free thank you! Crapware is the only possible definition of this. Made by people which never really understood how foss is supposed to work.

Yes, Im using my brain, always. But every time I read RMS speeches, they resonate in my mind as incredibly wise,realistic and altruistic; albeit very critical sometimes (not that lovely smiley fatty Gates&Balmer AG, ugh WGA wont hurt you! In fact you need it! We will WGA your children's genome for free too! Aint he investing into human genome research already? Teh Microsoft Way). Where RMS insists on carry conscious decisions, Bill and Co whisper on sweet future, exploiting ages of anti-human research(marketing).
You buy product, you happy. You buy product, you happy. Smile! :)

Ive already expressed my attitude to this discussion, but there is one more thing Id like to mention. Russians say, a holy place is never empty. You kill god, devil takes his place. You decide who is who, just try not to miss.


Reply to this

-

 Use WTFPL-2, not GPL-2!

 
 by ssuominen on: Dec 16 2009  
ssuominenssuominen

Everyone should use libcaca's license for max. freedom instead of restrictive GPL.



DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2, December 2004

Copyright (C) 2004 Sam Hocevar
22 rue de Plaisance, 75014 Paris, France
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim or modified
copies of this license document, and changing it is allowed as long
as the name is changed.

DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION

0. You just DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO.


Reply to this

-

 Re: Use WTFPL-2, not GPL-2!

 
 by nognu on: Dec 16 2009  
nognunognu

Not really funny.


Reply to this

-

 Re: Re: Use WTFPL-2, not GPL-2!

 
 by Fri13 on: Mar 7 2010  
Fri13Fri13

No it is not. Public Domain license (or such what would be top of these posts) are not free because no one is keeping to freedom safe.

If someone can close the source code and do what ever wants for it without giving source to those who use the software, there is no freedom.

What is Linux and GNU/Linux?
http://tinyurl.com/532kb8
http://tinyurl.com/mum9x
http://tinyurl.com/ngarn8
http://tinyurl.com/qhuhg
http://tinyurl.com/3uaq48
Reply to this

-
.

 Why the hell???

 
 by farizluqman on: Dec 16 2009  
farizluqmanfarizluqman
Operating System Developer(Re actOS)
Home
-
the hunter
Operating System Developer(ReactOS)
Malaysia, ampang
Last visit Aug 16 2010
7 Friends
47 Groups

Other contents
Send a message
Add as friend
More info
--

Why the hell you're hating Free Software Foundation, or, you want the softwares to be paid, or FSF do something wrong???

Everybody loves Windows, yeah, everybody loves it because of its fresh air, and hell, I love my door also...
Reply to this

-

 Re: Why the hell???

 
 by nognu on: Dec 16 2009  
nognunognu

I don't "hate" FSF but I don't like it for various reasons (read the comments above).

And I don't want to "pay" for software. I like free software and think also the GPL is a nice license idea and it's good to use it.

But FSF acts at if it would the the representative speaker of all free software, and that's really far from reality. They don't like free speech (they want to forbid some blogs of GNOME developers, see above). They want control. They are fanatic. See for example this nice photo of Richard Stallmann - it was for years on its homepage: http://globalnerdy.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/rms.jpg I don't like people who think totalitarian and I will not support them. IMHO most free software developers are not so fanatic like Stallmann - and I want to say this here.


Reply to this

-
.

 Re: Re: Why the hell???

 
 by aeza on: Dec 17 2009  
aezaaeza
FSF

I agree somewhat, we want a total opensource software, that means no cost at all... its all fanaticsm, softwares are like controlled by them. GNU_GPL is the best..

ACs are like computers- Both work fine until you open Windows!
Reply to this

-
.

 Re: Why the hell???

 
 by Fri13 on: Dec 18 2009  
Fri13Fri13

Quote:
Why the hell you're hating Free Software Foundation, or, you want the softwares to be paid, or FSF do something wrong???


Seems you have really understood wrong the GPL and that "Free Software" is about Liberity not about price.

GPL even suggest that developers ask money from their software. FSF does same thing.

What is Linux and GNU/Linux?
http://tinyurl.com/532kb8
http://tinyurl.com/mum9x
http://tinyurl.com/ngarn8
http://tinyurl.com/qhuhg
http://tinyurl.com/3uaq48
Reply to this

-

 Re: Re: Why the hell???

 
 by farizluqman on: Dec 18 2009  
farizluqmanfarizluqman
Operating System Developer(Re actOS)
Home
-
the hunter
Operating System Developer(ReactOS)
Malaysia, ampang
Last visit Aug 16 2010
7 Friends
47 Groups

Other contents
Send a message
Add as friend
More info
--

Read your comments, but is it true that one software must have the GNU licence? (and hell, my simple distro also has FSF "(Copyright)" this mean that our Linux Distro is being controlled by a unique organization (stallman the chairman) ..... everywhere, I can see theres GNU_GPL.txt inside many distro... is it the way they want to control these distributions??

Everybody loves Windows, yeah, everybody loves it because of its fresh air, and hell, I love my door also...
Reply to this

-

 Choosing freedoms

 
 by RyanMcCoskrie on: Feb 28 2010  
RyanMcCoskrieRyanMcCoskri e
KGuitar, Virt16
Home

The thing that scares me about Stallman is that he is very dictatorial on the point of what is and isn't freedom.

For that matter (when speaking of software) the word freedom should be swapped for consumer rights.


Reply to this

-

 Re: Choosing freedoms

 
 by Fri13 on: Mar 7 2010  
Fri13Fri13

That is good suggestion. Then people would not mistake it to free (as beer) and decision makers in governments would not be afraid that is not free (as speech) for them and all their citizens.

What is Linux and GNU/Linux?
http://tinyurl.com/532kb8
http://tinyurl.com/mum9x
http://tinyurl.com/ngarn8
http://tinyurl.com/qhuhg
http://tinyurl.com/3uaq48
Reply to this

-

 Re: Re: Choosing freedoms

 
 by RyanMcCoskrie on: Mar 9 2010  
RyanMcCoskrieRyanMcCoskri e
KGuitar, Virt16
Home

I doubt RMS would be receiving to the idea of someone rephrasing his pronouncements however.


Reply to this

BackHomeCreate new groupView all groups



-
My KDE-Look.org
-

STATUS MESSAGE
-
all messages

openDesktop.org Facebook App

NEWS
-

Linux42.org
-

POLL
-
Favorite Distribution 2010?
 Debian
 Gentoo
 SuSE
 Ubuntu
 Kubuntu
 Linux Mint
 Arch Linux
 Frugalware
 Fedora
 Mandriva
 PC Linux OS
 Other Distribution
 I'm a *BSD user
 Using Windows
 Using Mac OS X
 Other OS
 I don't use Computers and have asked another user to check this option for me.

resultmore

Popular Groups
-

FORUM
-

KDE-APPS.ORG
-

Partners
Place Your Link Here!
Online Casino
Fundraising Ideas
online Casino Roulette

 
 Who we are
Contact
More about us
Frequently Asked Questions
Register
Twitter
Blog
Explore
Artwork
Jobs
Knowledge
Events
People
Updates on identi.ca
Updates on Twitter
Facebook App
Content RSS   
News RSS   
Discussion RSS   
Events RSS   

Participate
Groups
Forum
Add Artwork
Public API
About KDE-Look.org
Legal Notice
Spreadshirt Shop
CafePress Shop
Advertising
Sponsor us
Report Abuse
 

Copyright 2001-2010 KDE-Look.org Team  
All rights reserved. KDE-Look.org is not liable for any content or goods on this site.
All contributors are responsible for the lawfulness of their uploads.
KDE and K Desktop Environment are trademarks of KDE e.V.