Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Bricky (thatbrickster@shitposter.world)'s status on Thursday, 13-Mar-2025 20:37:04 JST Bricky
   Ubuntu flirting with uutils for 25.10.
   https://www.phoronix.com/news/Ubuntu-25.10-Rust-Coreutils
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Thursday, 13-Mar-2025 20:37:03 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • mangeurdenuage :gnu: :trisquel: :gondola_head: 🌿 :abeshinzo: :ignucius:
     @mangeurdenuage @thatbrickster The Ubuntu's are already proprietary - it seems the intention is to make it difficult to clean the proprietary software out in the future and break GNU software, resulting in exponentially more work for the Trisquel project.
   • Embed this notice
     mangeurdenuage :gnu: :trisquel: :gondola_head: 🌿 :abeshinzo: :ignucius: (mangeurdenuage@shitposter.world)'s status on Thursday, 13-Mar-2025 20:37:04 JST mangeurdenuage :gnu: :trisquel: :gondola_head: 🌿 :abeshinzo: :ignucius:

     in reply to
     @thatbrickster Another step towards being able to make the *butus proprietary.
   • Embed this notice
     Bricky (thatbrickster@shitposter.world)'s status on Thursday, 13-Mar-2025 20:38:53 JST Bricky

     in reply to

     • mangeurdenuage :gnu: :trisquel: :gondola_head: 🌿 :abeshinzo: :ignucius:
     @mangeurdenuage I want a GNU-less Linux before 2038. Rust is ugly as sin (as is most GNU code) but eliminating classes of bugs and vulnerabilities is of interest, especially if it improves productivity (i.e. not bug-chasing, heh).
     
     Sui's rant about 'ten times more vulns' is completely unaware of GNU code in general. GNU C extensions deserve to die too.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Thursday, 13-Mar-2025 20:38:53 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • mangeurdenuage :gnu: :trisquel: :gondola_head: 🌿 :abeshinzo: :ignucius:
     @thatbrickster @mangeurdenuage You want a freedom-less OS huh?
     
     If you want a garbage, freedom-less OS, you can install BusyBox/Linux today (although you still can't compile it without GNU).
     
     GNU code is finely crafted (I love reading it) and the vulnerabilities have been worked out over years.
   • Embed this notice
     atma–jnani (dick@cawfee.club)'s status on Thursday, 13-Mar-2025 20:49:09 JST atma–jnani

     in reply to

     • mangeurdenuage :gnu: :trisquel: :gondola_head: 🌿 :abeshinzo: :ignucius:
     • atma–jnani
     @mangeurdenuage @thatbrickster gpl is gay shit not free if you tryign to make me do something
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Thursday, 13-Mar-2025 20:49:09 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • mangeurdenuage :gnu: :trisquel: :gondola_head: 🌿 :abeshinzo: :ignucius:
     • atma–jnani
     @dick @mangeurdenuage @thatbrickster There is no "mit" or "bsd" or "gpl" license.
     
     MIT released many licenses and there are many BSD licenses.
     
     There is the GPLv1, GPLv2, GPLv3 and also the Lesser and Affero variants.
     
     If you actually read the text of the licenses, you'll soon see which is more free;
     MIT expat;
     the rights to ***use***, copy, modify, merge, publish,
     distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to
     permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, ***subject to
     the following conditions***:
     
     BSD 3-clause;
     Redistribution and ***use*** in source and binary forms, with or without
     modification, are permitted ***provided that the following conditions are met***:
     
     GPLv3;
     9. Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies.
     
     You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or
     run a copy of the Program.
     
     
     As you can see, the GPLv3 grants freedom 0 in the most free way.
     
     
     
     No version of GPL forces you do to do anything - you are free to run the software for any purpose, make private modifications for your private use without publishing anything and are free to distribute modified or unmodified versions for profit (or without profit).
     
     The GPLv3 just doesn't grant you the power to restrict the software and steal freedom from the users by refusing to provide the source code and installation information to the users (which is a good thing).
     
     If you don't like the conditions, you have the freedom to not use the software or complain to the government that their copyright laws are preventing you from making software proprietary.
   • Embed this notice
     atma–jnani (dick@cawfee.club)'s status on Thursday, 13-Mar-2025 20:49:10 JST atma–jnani

     in reply to

     • mangeurdenuage :gnu: :trisquel: :gondola_head: 🌿 :abeshinzo: :ignucius:
     @mangeurdenuage @thatbrickster but niothing i program wil the man want
   • Embed this notice
     atma–jnani (dick@cawfee.club)'s status on Thursday, 13-Mar-2025 20:49:10 JST atma–jnani

     in reply to

     • mangeurdenuage :gnu: :trisquel: :gondola_head: 🌿 :abeshinzo: :ignucius:
     • atma–jnani
     @mangeurdenuage @thatbrickster mit and bsd liscence are the most free.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Thursday, 13-Mar-2025 20:51:43 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • mangeurdenuage :gnu: :trisquel: :gondola_head: 🌿 :abeshinzo: :ignucius:
     @thatbrickster @mangeurdenuage GNU is currently the *only* nontrivial free software project, making it the be-all-end-all of software freedom.
     
     Every single other nontrivial project has fallen to proprietary rot.
     
     Maybe if there was many free software projects that stood for freedom, GNU would no longer be the be-all-end-all, but I doubt that will ever be the case, thus GNU shall stand strong.
   • Embed this notice
     mangeurdenuage :gnu: :trisquel: :gondola_head: 🌿 :abeshinzo: :ignucius: (mangeurdenuage@shitposter.world)'s status on Thursday, 13-Mar-2025 20:51:44 JST mangeurdenuage :gnu: :trisquel: :gondola_head: 🌿 :abeshinzo: :ignucius:

     in reply to
     @thatbrickster Yeah, I'm speaking about human rights while you're pecking about technical issues.
   • Embed this notice
     Bricky (thatbrickster@shitposter.world)'s status on Thursday, 13-Mar-2025 20:51:44 JST Bricky

     in reply to

     • mangeurdenuage :gnu: :trisquel: :gondola_head: 🌿 :abeshinzo: :ignucius:
     @mangeurdenuage Splitting hairs given the context. GNU is not the be-all-end-all of software freedom. There comes a time when its limited scope is no longer applicable to modern circumstances, like the 1951 definition of a refugee.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Thursday, 13-Mar-2025 20:56:13 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • mangeurdenuage :gnu: :trisquel: :gondola_head: 🌿 :abeshinzo: :ignucius:
     • atma–jnani
     @thatbrickster @dick @mangeurdenuage >If I had a horse in this race, it's Apache
     There is Apache 1.1 and Apache 2.0.
     
     Apache 2.0 is GPLv3-compatible (but not GPLv2-compatible).
     
     >It doesn't have restrictive terms (GPL)
     Please actually read any GNU license.
     
     Why don't you try to find a restriction in the GPLv3 for me? (spoiler: there are no restrictions, just no grant of power in certain cases); https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html
   • Embed this notice
     Bricky (thatbrickster@shitposter.world)'s status on Thursday, 13-Mar-2025 20:56:14 JST Bricky

     in reply to

     • mangeurdenuage :gnu: :trisquel: :gondola_head: 🌿 :abeshinzo: :ignucius:
     • atma–jnani
     @dick If I had a horse in this race, it's Apache. It doesn't have restrictive terms (GPL) nor does it make an excuse for The Man to take without accreditation or financial support (MIT/BSD). Having worked in software I can tell you normies don't understand or care about licences. The latter is easier to enforce because there isn't much to enforce.
     
     @mangeurdenuage
   • Embed this notice
     Bricky (thatbrickster@shitposter.world)'s status on Thursday, 13-Mar-2025 20:59:54 JST Bricky

     in reply to

     • mangeurdenuage :gnu: :trisquel: :gondola_head: 🌿 :abeshinzo: :ignucius:
     @mangeurdenuage When the 2nd Amendment was written it didn't consider modern weaponry, same for the 19th Amendment and modern women. The intended scope becomes limiting once the circumstances allow for possibilities that couldn't be fathomed when the principles were crystalised. This is why 'living documents' exist, HTML5 is a 'living standard' for better or worse.
     
     I don't know how else to tell you.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Thursday, 13-Mar-2025 20:59:54 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • mangeurdenuage :gnu: :trisquel: :gondola_head: 🌿 :abeshinzo: :ignucius:
     @thatbrickster @mangeurdenuage Modern weaponry was indeed considered when writing the 2nd amendment, as in the preceding years, rifles lethal like never before had been brought in and used in war and they would have clearly considered that firearms would keep advancing.
     
     Current AR-15 style semi-automatic rifles, aren't that much more lethal really.
   • Embed this notice
     mangeurdenuage :gnu: :trisquel: :gondola_head: 🌿 :abeshinzo: :ignucius: (mangeurdenuage@shitposter.world)'s status on Thursday, 13-Mar-2025 20:59:55 JST mangeurdenuage :gnu: :trisquel: :gondola_head: 🌿 :abeshinzo: :ignucius:

     in reply to
     @thatbrickster Yet again, I'm still speaking about licenses, while now you are speaking about projects.
     
     >limited scope
     Please elaborate.