Untitled attachment

Notices where this attachment appears

1. Embed this notice
   翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Thursday, 16-Jan-2025 00:37:39 JST 翠星石

   in reply to
   @SupportGrapheneOS_667 @realestninja https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.html
   
   Obtainium looks interesting, too bad the proprietary google SDK is used to compile most Android software....
2. Embed this notice
   翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Wednesday, 15-Jan-2025 17:19:28 JST 翠星石

   in reply to
   @bonkmaykr @xianc78 You are deeply insulting rms by referring to his work as "FOSS"; https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.html
   
   He does free software.
   
   >I should drop everything I rely on to do my work
   I have never written to do that once.
   
   I have just pointed out how it's clearly not your work if you rely on proprietary software to do it.
   
   
   If people know that free software exists and was written to give the users freedom, without the message being distorted by "open source" degeneracy, the user has been given the chance to decide whether they will take their freedom back or submit to a proprietary master.
   
   >I think a lot of the evil of proprietary software is overblown too
   The evil of proprietary software is always underblown and discredited up - it's far worse than you could even imagine.
   
   >Not all proprietary software is malware
   Can you name a unicorn proprietary software that isn't malware?
   
   Not respecting the users freedom is inherently malicious, but for that point I'll exclude that.
   
   >people understand how FOSS is more trustworthy and make it a selling point
   Focusing on a merely practical point as a "selling" point is doomed for failure, as proprietary software companies are very good at pointing out the very few cases where previously free software had become untrustworthy (i.e. xz-utils backdooring, where proprietary software had been slipped into a release archive) and very good at covering up the countless cases of proprietary malware.
   
   If a company promises "trustworthy" proprietary software (i.e. partially source-available proprietary software shilled as fully source-available "open source" software), why would a user "sold" on trustworthy software not pay for a copy and run it?
   
   If the user is instead taught to value freedom, they will say no to such proprietary software and remain free.
   
   >Telling someone they need to go schizo and change their computing habits overnight to become some copyleft protestor
   I have never written that.
   
   >When I found out about the FOSS movement
   A disaster as no such movement exists.
   
   There is the pure and true free software movement and there is the corporate bootlicking "open source" movement and "FOSS" attempts to be neutral between both - but even fails at that.
   
   >was able to selectively choose some free software alternatives
   A disaster as you considered them to be mere alternatives, rather than free replacements.
   
   >Software freedom is all about making good choices for yourself.
   If you are always going to continue to surrender your freedom to proprietary software, are you making good choices for yourself?
3. Embed this notice
   翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Tuesday, 24-Dec-2024 23:28:10 JST 翠星石

   in reply to
   @frogzone >(i thought "FOSS" encompassed copyleft but i may stand corrected)
   "FOSS" was only intended to be a neutral between free software and "open source", but it even fails to be neutral, as almost all people assume it means gratis, source available software.
   
   If you wish to be neutral, "FLOSS" is the term to use, but why would you want to be neutral between freedom and corporate bootlicking?; https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.html
4. Embed this notice
   翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Friday, 23-Aug-2024 23:57:19 JST 翠星石
   @clew >I'm kinda hesitant to blindly license it under a license that doesn't even exist yet
   It's not blindly;
   "The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the GNU Affero General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be ***similar in spirit*** to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns."
   
   If the AGPLv4 turns out to be no good, you can choose to no longer license under AGPLv3-or-later and change the license to AGPLv3-only for your version.
   
   >I'll give it some serious thought and look around to see what the consensus is on this.
   The consensus is licensing -or-later - the few developers who license -only have done so for dubious reasons and seem to be interested in things other than freedom.
   
   >I think both "Open Source" and "Free Software" "miss the point", after being in the FOSS ecosystem for years
   "FOSS" is attempting to be neutral between "open source" and free software - so claiming that they both miss the point, is claiming that "FOSS" misses the point twice as hard (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.html).
   
   Unfortunately, "FOSS" fails to achieve neutrality, as people seem to take it to mean; gratis, source-available software
   
   The earliest I've seen "FOSS" being used as a term was in February 2004; https://web.archive.org/web/20040208005409if_/http://www.dwheeler.com:80/oss_fs_why.html but it really hasn't been around as long as free software (given a concrete definition in ~1984, although software freedom was enjoyed since the start of computing, until proprietary companies started screwing things up) and "open source" (which has only been around since 1998 and was quite novel in its idea of attacking freedom and to state that the only important thing is developing functionally better software, faster, even if that requires getting money from proprietary software companies to develop primarily proprietary software (just as long as source code is under a license of approved criteria for some users it's okay - even if the software is proprietary for the vast majority of users)).
   
   There is no "FOSS ecosystem" as an ecosystem is something that just happens and you just observe what happens - free software has only been possible because of all the hard work GNU developers have put in to developing all required software to allow for a free OS, whether interesting or uninteresting, thus allowing other developers to focus on writing their interesting software without having to write the compiler, the assembler, the linker, the binutils, the shell, the editor, the C library, the buildsystem, the coreutils, the bootloader, the image editor, the apl interpreter, the strings translator (for multi-language interface support), the windowing toolkit, the multilingual font, the BGP implementation, the forth interpreter, the chess engine, the crypto library, the signing and encryption software, etc, etc, etc (https://www.gnu.org/software/) first.
   
   >what's more important to me is that it's made by people for other people, not by corporations for their customers.
   Most software is custom software written by corporations for their customers and if the customer has any wit, the contract will state that the source code will be provided and copyright assigned - making that free software, which is legitimate.
   
   Of course corporations will make software proprietary if you let them - in their thirst for more profit (even if misconstrued) - but when kept carefully under control, accepting contributions from corporations is not a problem.
   
   Most free software seems to be made by developers for themselves, but rather than being spiteful and refuse to share any of their improvements, they happily share it with everyone.