Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Blender Dumbass ( J.Y.Amihud ) (blenderdumbass@mastodon.online)'s status on Wednesday, 18-Dec-2024 10:16:18 JST Blender Dumbass ( J.Y.Amihud )

   There should be a #FreeSoftware suggester bot on #Mastodon that goes over proprietary software hashtags and annoys everybody with suggesting an alternative that respects #UserFreedom.

   #Gnu #Linux #Opensource

   • Embed this notice
     Björn (thaodan@mastodon.social)'s status on Wednesday, 18-Dec-2024 10:16:17 JST Björn

     in reply to

     @blenderdumbass Freedom means to also free to choose even if it shooting your self in the foot.
     You can't avoid proprietary software entirely. Besides even GPL-3.0 restricts your freedom on what you use your software on already so yeah.

   • Embed this notice
     Blender Dumbass ( J.Y.Amihud ) (blenderdumbass@mastodon.online)'s status on Wednesday, 18-Dec-2024 10:16:17 JST Blender Dumbass ( J.Y.Amihud )

     in reply to

     • Björn

     @thaodan

     What? GPL doesn't restrict the use of software. There is a section specifically stating that for use only you don't even need to agree to the damn license.

     Maybe you mean it is potentially breaking the GPL to release code under it on Apple's Stores. Yes that is true. But that is not touching the user in anyway. Just the devs and Apple Stores.

     MortSinyx likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Björn (thaodan@mastodon.social)'s status on Wednesday, 18-Dec-2024 21:27:09 JST Björn

     in reply to

     @blenderdumbass GPL-3.0 has clauses to prevent the use on devices who are locked without means to remove the lock which in some contexts impossible or not legal. GPL-3.0 because of the Tivo Clauses and the not existing help from the FSF to clarify has been a big issue.

   • Embed this notice
     Blender Dumbass ( J.Y.Amihud ) (blenderdumbass@mastodon.online)'s status on Wednesday, 18-Dec-2024 21:27:09 JST Blender Dumbass ( J.Y.Amihud )

     in reply to

     • Björn

     @thaodan GPL is a copyright license. It is not an End User License Agreement.

     MortSinyx likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Blender Dumbass ( J.Y.Amihud ) (blenderdumbass@mastodon.online)'s status on Wednesday, 18-Dec-2024 21:27:19 JST Blender Dumbass ( J.Y.Amihud )

     in reply to

     • Björn

     @thaodan The Tivo clauses are on the manufacturers of the devices. It has no connection with what the user can do with the device. Again since for use the program you don't need to agree to the GPL, you can use GPL'd program on any device. You need to respect the GPL only when you convey the program. As in if you redistribute it. And the Tivo Clause is only applicable if you distribute it with hardware. To make sure that this hardware enables the user to change the software.

     MortSinyx likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Wednesday, 18-Dec-2024 21:35:59 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • Björn
     @thaodan @blenderdumbass There is no excuses for handcuffing the user, tough;
     12. No Surrender of Others' Freedom.
     If conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot convey a covered work so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not convey it at all. For example, if you agree to terms that obligate you to collect a royalty for further conveying from those to whom you convey the Program, the only way you could satisfy both those terms and this License would be to refrain entirely from conveying the Program.
     
     The GPLv3 actually allows tivotization for commercial-only products unlike the GPLv2;
     A “User Product” is either (1) a “consumer product”, which means any tangible personal property which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes, or (2) anything designed or sold for incorporation into a dwelling. In determining whether a product is a consumer product, doubtful cases shall be resolved in favor of coverage. For a particular product received by a particular user, “normally used” refers to a typical or common use of that class of product, regardless of the status of the particular user or of the way in which the particular user actually uses, or expects or is expected to use, the product. A product is a consumer product regardless of whether the product has substantial commercial, industrial or non-consumer uses, unless such uses represent the only significant mode of use of the product.
     
     “Installation Information” for a User Product means any methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from a modified version of its Corresponding Source. The information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made.
     
     GPLv2;
     The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Wednesday, 18-Dec-2024 21:49:49 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • Björn
     • 𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙
     @sally @thaodan @blenderdumbass >You can't avoid proprietary software entirely.
     I don't know really, as it's not like I installed a single byte of proprietary software onto my computer to the BIOS level.
     
     I don't even execute the proprietary VBIOS on my GPU - rather the instructions are interpreted and free software instructions in a fixed function init program in nouveau are executed.
     
     You can avoid proprietary software majorly and with every new free software program, we mm towards 100% freedom.
   • Embed this notice
     𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙 (sally@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Wednesday, 18-Dec-2024 21:49:50 JST 𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙

     in reply to

     • Björn
     @thaodan
     @blenderdumbass
     
     
     > You can't avoid proprietary software entirely.
     
     There's still a clear difference between acknowledging reality but still reject proprietary software as much as possible or doing the best you can with what you have, and bad actors (like you) with a lax narrative trying to justify proprietary degeneracy.
     
     
     FAGMAN is annoying with their abusive proprietary software, and free software advocates should be as annoying to fight it back.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Wednesday, 18-Dec-2024 22:04:09 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • Björn
     • 𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙
     @sally @blenderdumbass @thaodan >There's not enough KGPE-D16 boards for everyone that is a free software advocate/enjoyer/dev
     True, considering that some people go; "30 boards available? I'll buy them all", but there is at least 10,000 of those boards sitting unused somewhere and there are other boards like the KCMA-D8, KFSN4-DRE, D510MO and GA-G41M-ES2L, plus up to a billion other now mostly unused systems that are possible to GNUboot, which means there are enough computers available for everyone if the work is put it.
     
     I won't be problem if there suddenly are so many freedom enjoyers that hardware runs out, as getting a freedom-respecting computer fabbed and manufactured in the quality of 10 million or more won't be an issue.
   • Embed this notice
     𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙 (sally@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Wednesday, 18-Dec-2024 22:04:11 JST 𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     • Björn
     @Suiseiseki
     @blenderdumbass @thaodan
     
     
     There's not enough KGPE-D16 boards for everyone that is a free software advocate/enjoyer/dev, specially since it's a decade old board that has been long discontinued, it's not entirely unreasonable to claim that not everyone has the privilege to get a freedom respecting machine but that shouldn't he used to justify being a pushover to big tech proprietary degenerates.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Wednesday, 18-Dec-2024 22:04:24 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     • Björn
     • 𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙
     @sally @blenderdumbass @thaodan *quantity
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Wednesday, 18-Dec-2024 22:12:42 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • 𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙
     @sally @blenderdumbass >dual channel was bugged
     Yes, unfortunately that board has poor wiring and RAMinit doesn't work for many sticks.
     
     If you ask in the right place, people will shower you with enough old DDR2 sticks to find a working combination.
   • Embed this notice
     𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙 (sally@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Wednesday, 18-Dec-2024 22:12:43 JST 𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     • Björn
     @Suiseiseki
     @blenderdumbass @thaodan
     
     
     > GA-G41M-ES2L
     
     I have one of those, last time I flashed Libreboot years ago (before it became absolutely proprietary) on it, dual channel was bugged and the board would refuse to POST with two DIMMs, which is very unfortunate given DDR2 is already limited in capacity by today standards.
     
     
     Other than hoarders and scalpers there's also the problem of Microshit actively looking to destroy old hardware that respects users, one of the main reasons potentially being because it respects users.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Wednesday, 18-Dec-2024 22:32:36 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • 𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙
     • meso [netzsphaere era]
     @meso @sally >kgpe-d16 was the dual cpu one right
     It supports 61xx, 62xx and 63xx Opteron CPUs.
     
     61xx and 63xx sucks, but you can't really find those CPUs anyway.
     
     >I somehow arrived at KGPE-D16 being the best motherboard in existence
     This was because it is - it has 6 SATA ports and 8 SATA/SAS ports (that do not work without an added SAS card - I hope for free software for such card of course), firewire, fits 2 RS-232, has enough 4-pin fan headers, supports up to 256GB ECC DDR3, fits 2x 16 core CPUs, dual gigabit etherenet and is also reasonably priced, as you can't get G34 coolers anymore, but modding on a cooler to fit isn't hard.
     
     The drawbacks are that there are limited PCIe ID's despite enough sockets, although I haven't run into that, no integrated audio and not enough USB ports (although there are enough usb headers).
     
     I looked at 4 socket supermicro boards, but the lack of PCIe sockets and SATA ports really kills such boards.
   • Embed this notice
     meso [netzsphaere era] (meso@netzsphaere.xyz)'s status on Wednesday, 18-Dec-2024 22:32:38 JST meso [netzsphaere era]

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     • Björn
     • 𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙
     @Suiseiseki @sally @blenderdumbass @thaodan kgpe-d16 was the dual cpu one right or were they both dual CPU but one had an older gen opteron or something
     
     I somehow arrived at KGPE-D16 being the best motherboard in existence without even specifically looking for free software boards, just best old AMD CPUs and motherboards. Later found out it was supported by free software boots
   • Embed this notice
     Blender Dumbass ( J.Y.Amihud ) (blenderdumbass@mastodon.online)'s status on Thursday, 19-Dec-2024 10:41:03 JST Blender Dumbass ( J.Y.Amihud )

     in reply to

     • Björn

     @thaodan If the user cannot change software on user's device it's an injustice. And if some law of company makes devices like those radio devices or cars you just mentioned, where the user cannot change software, that is also an injustice. Those devices better not to exist. Or instead those companies can choose to lift their restrictions. Or those laws could be canceled.

     翠星石 and MortSinyx like this.
   • Embed this notice
     Björn (thaodan@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 19-Dec-2024 10:41:04 JST Björn

     in reply to

     @blenderdumbass Rly? Of course I know the philosophy but there's a difference between practice and it. Developers develop software most users don't. Developers get paid by companies that want to use the software, if they can't use GPL-3.0 or if they are legally unsure that they want improve or develop GPL-3.0 software. I want GPL-3.0 to see adaption which is why I'm making these points. Think out of your own bubble.

   • Embed this notice
     Björn (thaodan@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 19-Dec-2024 10:41:04 JST Björn

     in reply to

     @blenderdumbass @Suiseiseki@reesoftwareextremist.com
     You made a good point. Can't reply directly so I'm doing it this way: There's a clause about industrial devices in GPL-3.0 which is good but there's an important different in GPL-3.0 which makes it much worse for use cases where you can't hand out e.g. authorization keys. You can't hand out authorization keys which allow you to reflash radio firmware like in Modems. The situation is very similar when it comes to automotive software.

   • Embed this notice
     Blender Dumbass ( J.Y.Amihud ) (blenderdumbass@mastodon.online)'s status on Thursday, 19-Dec-2024 10:41:05 JST Blender Dumbass ( J.Y.Amihud )

     in reply to

     • Björn
     • 𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙

     @sally @thaodan I think Björn here just didn't research well, did not read the license. Did not go to GNU.org and read the philosophy. And tries to argue with us who did, on the points in those texts.

   • Embed this notice
     Björn (thaodan@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 19-Dec-2024 13:35:07 JST Björn

     in reply to

     @blenderdumbass There's a big intersection of hardware only legally verified software is allowed to start which is used by consumers indirectly but also by non-consumers also in as e.g. in phones, cars or medical equipment. Firmware for GPU's and such is one thing but I think it very much makes sense that only verified software can run which could disrupt others or even risk the lives of people. Not that these processes are perfect but better than someone disrupt some radio signal.

   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Thursday, 19-Dec-2024 13:35:07 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • Björn
     @thaodan @blenderdumbass >There's a big intersection of hardware only legally verified software is allowed to start
     I would actually like to see a single law that says that.
     
     In reality, although some radio regulations insist on restricting what a transmitter can do, there is no requirement that the software used to implement signalling has digital handcuffs on it.
     
     >it very much makes sense that only verified software can run which could disrupt others or even risk the lives of people.
     Proprietary software that cannot be fixed in a life critical device is arguably much more risky to the life's of people than software that can be fixed via physical access (you can sabotage such machines in much worse ways with physical access).
     
     There is no reason for any hardware to refuse to run any modified software anyway - all it needs to do is display on the output that the installed software does not pass the signature check, which would allow the hospital staff etc to investigate (while not much investigation is going to happen if yet another machine has stopped working - it's getting thrown out).
     
     >but better than someone disrupt some radio signal.
     When it comes to interference, it is *always* proprietary software that causes interference and not free software.
     
     Proprietary software is known for breaking transmission rules by increasing TX power above what regulations allow and that cannot be fixed, as the software is proprietary (this is very common in 802.11ac AP's although "Open"WRT supports a few of them and on them decreases TX power to the legal limit).
     
     Modern radio equipment is expressly designed to handle interference now anyway, so there is no reason why it shouldn't be a free-for-all on most bands with maybe an agreed upper limit on TX power (this is pretty much already the case with proprietary software transmitters, except some of them are transmitting in excess of what the TX upper limit would be).
     
     If someone wants to disrupt some radio signal, they'll grab a microwave and disable the interlocks, rather than spend dozens of hours fiddling with some software transmitter.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Friday, 20-Dec-2024 20:09:52 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • Björn
     @thaodan @blenderdumbass >you aware that modifying certain software such as radios can impact anyone around them?
     Humans do not receive radio signals, thus no matter what you do with a few Watt TX cannot impact people around you.
     
     The typical modification to done to radios is to *reduce* TX power or to mitigate signalling or interference problems caused by proprietary software.
     
     >You could impact the security of anyone around you by sending radio signals on frequencies you are not allowed too.
     This conflates security with band restrictions that have no security or interference prevention goals and solely exist for requiring payment to use such bands and nothing else.
     
     If you want to prevent cross-channel interference, you add a bandpass filter, but of course the FCC has done their best to prevent that, by insisting on proprietary connectors for antennas.
     
     >You could kill someone.
     Free radio software has never killed anyone, while proprietary radio software combined with flaws in proprietary hardware has killed quite a few people.
   • Embed this notice
     Björn (thaodan@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 20-Dec-2024 20:09:53 JST Björn

     in reply to

     @blenderdumbass Are you aware that modifying certain software such as radios can impact anyone around them? You could impact the security of anyone around you by sending radio signals on frequencies you are not allowed too. You could kill someone.
     Really your username says it all in this context.