Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Tuesday, 29-Apr-2025 03:13:35 JST 翠星石
   >People cannot believe it when I state facts and point out that Linux and Debian are proprietary software.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Wednesday, 30-Apr-2025 14:26:00 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • 夜化
     @Yoruka Ubuntu is proprietary software too, as they only use proprietary versions of Linux and ship proprietary software in the installer iso.
   • Embed this notice
     夜化 (yoruka@eientei.org)'s status on Wednesday, 30-Apr-2025 14:26:02 JST 夜化

     in reply to
     @Suiseiseki ubuntu
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Wednesday, 30-Apr-2025 14:26:37 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • waff
     @waff Debian != Trisquel.
     
     Yes, a soft-fork that removes the proprietary software from Ubuntu is clearly free.
   • Embed this notice
     waff (waff@eientei.org)'s status on Wednesday, 30-Apr-2025 14:26:39 JST waff

     in reply to
     @Suiseiseki depends on if it is a fork or not. Trisquel for instance is based off ubuntu which itself is based off debain.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Wednesday, 30-Apr-2025 21:25:05 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • 𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙
     @sally If you use workaround, it is possible to use Debian without proprietary software.
     
     Debian has not committed to removing proprietary software if it is discovered, therefore it has not committed to your freedom - it has only a requirement that nonfree software is put in the "nonfree" repo, which may change in the future.
   • Embed this notice
     𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙 (sally@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Wednesday, 30-Apr-2025 21:25:07 JST 𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙

     in reply to
     @Suiseiseki
     
     What if I bootstrap Debian from Trisquel?
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Wednesday, 30-Apr-2025 21:37:07 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • 𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙
     @sally Turns out they don't even follow their own requirement that nonfree software is put into the "nonfree" repo after all.
   • Embed this notice
     𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙 (sally@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Wednesday, 30-Apr-2025 21:37:08 JST 𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙

     in reply to
     @Suiseiseki
     
     > Debian has not committed to removing proprietary software if it is discovered
     
     Given they ship nmap 7.95 under the free repository I'm inclined to agree.
   • Embed this notice
     𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙 (sally@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Wednesday, 30-Apr-2025 21:50:56 JST 𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙

     in reply to
     @Suiseiseki
     
     Something equally infuriating is that the guys involved with nmap define themselves as a Free Software project despite being explicitly non-free by any definitions, including the corporate bootlickers from OSI.
     翠星石 likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Thursday, 01-May-2025 10:51:57 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • waff
     @waff Yes, Artix != Arch and Devuan != Debian, as they have a different name and are a different project, even though they do fork from such projects.
   • Embed this notice
     waff (waff@eientei.org)'s status on Thursday, 01-May-2025 10:51:59 JST waff

     in reply to
     @Suiseiseki by that logic then artix is not arch and devuan is not debian as well
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Thursday, 01-May-2025 11:10:01 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • 𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙
     @sally Proprietary software developers will come up with any excuse why they use a proprietary license.
     
     The problem isn't a lack of lawyers - if nmap actually licensed GPLv2-only and a company infringes such license for profit, nmap would just need to tell them that their license has automatically terminated and that they may only continue to redistribute the software as proprietary software once they purchase the exception and that maximal damages will be sought if they continue to infringe copyright for profit.
     
     Lawyers are expensive, but nmap doesn't seem short on money considering their sale of exceptions and even if they don't have money, they will easily be able to get copyright lawyers lining up to offer no-win-no fee copyright enforcement (as they'll gladly take such an easy win case and wack on a fat DOUBLE fee at the end).
     
     The lawyer in the end would get all the damages money, but that would set an example.
     
     
     Companies only come up with "strange (incorrect) interpretations" of the GPLv2 - if that was the actual concern, they would just relicense to AGPLv3-or-later and offer their exception to that, as no company has been able to come up with an excuse why they don't need to comply with that license.
   • Embed this notice
     𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙 (sally@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Thursday, 01-May-2025 11:10:02 JST 𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙

     in reply to

     • 𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙𝅙
     @Suiseiseki
     
     > The idea here is to prevent companies from using open source Nmap in their proprietary software or appliances. Some have in the past distributed Nmap executables as part of expensive proprietary products and refused to make the source available, claiming a loophole based on strange interpretations of the GPL definition of derivative and collective works. If companies take value from Nmap, they need to contribute back to the project and the open source community by either making their product/project compatible open source or buying a commercial license.
     
     Tell me how does this rationale make any sense given GPL is precisely intended to avoid such scenarios being a thing. Their problem is lack of lawyers to bring this to court, not a bullshit interpretation of a license.