Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Thursday, 10-Oct-2024 01:12:20 JST 翠星石

   • T man :sex: :puffgiga: :puffpowerroll:
   • 0
   @theorytoe @0 Is that what infidels really believe?
   
   GCC long predates Linux, with its initial release on March 22, 1987 and it's initial popularity had nothing to do with Linux - its popularity was because it was the only usable free computer of its time - all other compilers were proprietary.
   
   In 1990, the year before Linux was even a thing, GCC supported thirteen computer architectures, was outperforming several vendor compilers and was used commercially by several companies.
   
   GCC wasn't even the main project - that was GNU Emacs, initially released in 20 March 1985.
   
   There are many licenses in the GPL family - the GPLv1 predates Linux and was used in a lot of software; https://www.gnu.org/licenses/
   
   Linux partially licenses GPLv2-only, which thankfully isn't very popular - GPLv2-or-later or GPLv3-or-later is much more popular.
   
   
   Even before GNU was nearing completion, long before Linux, GNU software was popular on proprietary unix's as it was far better than the garbage software supplied by the vendor.
   
   
   For rms's sake, you're posting messages on the fediverse, made possible by GNU social and you have the gall to claim that such wasn't a contribution to technology?
   
   Just to name a few, GNU r, GNU ncurses, gnupg, GNU coreutils, GIMP, glibc, GNU tar, GNU awk, GNU sed, GNU mailman, GNU parted, GtK, GNU ocrad, GNU gettext, GNU unifont, GNU octave, GRUB, ghostcript, GNU patch, diffutils, GNU ed, GNU bash, GNU Zebra, GNU heath, GNU libidn, GNU pascal, GNU apl, GNU less, GNU make, GNU binutils, gnuTLS, GNU aspell, GNU dico, GNU autoconf, gnulib, GNU grep, GNU wget, GNU bison, GNU units, GNU fontutils, GNU texinfo and readline are all GNU software that have contributed massively to technology and are widely used and are popular, due to how such software respects the users freedom, not due to Linux.
   
   Read infidel, read; https://www.gnu.org/software/
   
   Furthermore, all free software is built on top of the bedrock of GNU, as anywhere else is sinking sand for freedom.
   
   
   Linux came much later and GNU developers were the one who allowed them to actually write it and get it usable (no, just GCC wasn't enough, they needed GNU and also a lot of other GNU software) and of course ignorant people shit all over GNU and claim it was all "Linux", because that's what the proprietary masters instruct.
   • 翠星石 likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Thursday, 10-Oct-2024 01:13:52 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • T man :sex: :puffgiga: :puffpowerroll:
     • 0
     @theorytoe @0 *they needed GNU make
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Thursday, 10-Oct-2024 01:21:08 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • EdBoatConnoisseur
     @EdBoatConnoisseur Not just C++ either - the only reason why pretty much all languages gcc supports have a free compiler, including C, is because gcc provided one - although in certain cases, other groups have used gcc to assist with writing another compiler of such language.
   • Embed this notice
     EdBoatConnoisseur (edboatconnoisseur@poa.st)'s status on Thursday, 10-Oct-2024 01:21:09 JST EdBoatConnoisseur

     in reply to

     • T man :sex: :puffgiga: :puffpowerroll:
     • 0

     @0 @Suiseiseki @theorytoe Dumbfuck, do you know the only niggerfucking reason why there ever was a foss c++ compiler? Because gcc was used as a base, otherwise c++ would have remained locked behind proprietary compilers for who knows how long.

   • Embed this notice
     0 (https://pl.absolutelyproprietary.org/users/0)'s status on Thursday, 10-Oct-2024 01:21:10 JST 0

     in reply to

     • T man :sex: :puffgiga: :puffpowerroll:
     @Suiseiseki @theorytoe
     
     Don't tag me in your retarded spewing, dumbfuck.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Thursday, 10-Oct-2024 21:42:00 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • EdBoatConnoisseur
     @EdBoatConnoisseur I'm not sure, but GNU does not allow proprietary versions of gcc and at that time, if you wanted to publish or sell a modified version, you needed to license it under the GPLv2-or-later or GPLv2-only and if you wanted your changes incorporated into the main release, you needed to assign your copyright to the FSF.
     
     The FSF didn't and still won't hesitate to sue if someone was to make a proprietary version of GCC and sell proprietary "licenses" for it.
     
     
     There was also another case where the "open group" added support for objective C and wanted to release the front end as proprietary software in only object code form, with the user linking it with the back end - but rms said that it wasn't allowed and such proprietary group decided to release that as free software, rather than to throw it all away.
   • Embed this notice
     EdBoatConnoisseur (edboatconnoisseur@poa.st)'s status on Thursday, 10-Oct-2024 21:42:01 JST EdBoatConnoisseur

     in reply to

     @Suiseiseki Yeh, the company that used GCC as a base for their C++ compiler used to only release proprietary software, but they released their compiler under the GPLv2 (i think), i think one of the reasons they even did that was out of annoyance from customers complaining the source libraries they paid for wouldn't build with some proprietary compilers and they gave their customers that gpl compiler so they would shut up, or was that a different language?

   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Thursday, 10-Oct-2024 23:49:10 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • EdBoatConnoisseur
     @EdBoatConnoisseur I haven't heard of such case, but it sounds credible and I would love to read the details.
     
     A search uncovered this gem; https://www.fsf.org/news/fsf-responds-to-jobss-thoughts-on-flash
     
     Apple does ships a lot of GNU software with macos, although they stopped updating it when GNU updated to the GPLv3-or-later, as they did not like the enhanced freedom (there's even permission given to tivotize for business-only devices, unlike the GPLv2, which forbids tivotization totally).
   • Embed this notice
     EdBoatConnoisseur (edboatconnoisseur@poa.st)'s status on Thursday, 10-Oct-2024 23:49:11 JST EdBoatConnoisseur

     in reply to

     @Suiseiseki wasn't there also that one time steve jobs wanted to release something based on GNU code or that linked directly to a GNU library as proprietary and even asked RMS about it, RMS said no and he had to release the software with a compatible license?