Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Libre Graphics Meeting (lgm@post.lurk.org)'s status on Wednesday, 07-May-2025 07:22:02 JST Libre Graphics Meeting

   Keynote Announcement: Dr. Richard Stallman

   https://libregraphicsmeeting.org/2025/news/2025-05-06_0002-keynote-announcement-richard-stallman

   On Wednesday, May 28th at 19:30, Dr. Richard Stallman will deliver a keynote on Free/Libre Software and Freedom in the Digital Society at Libre Graphics Meeting.

   See the details in the linked announcement regarding admission to the talk.

   I also included a personal note on the decision, as I received mixed feedback.

   --Lasse

   #LibreGraphicsMeeting #LGM25NBG

   • Embed this notice
     David Revoy (davidrevoy@framapiaf.org)'s status on Wednesday, 07-May-2025 07:22:01 JST David Revoy

     in reply to

     @lgm ... and Libre Graphics Meeting is now dead to me. 😩

     Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     四 (yon@sakurajima.moe)'s status on Wednesday, 07-May-2025 18:11:52 JST 四

     in reply to

     • David Revoy

     @davidrevoy I firmly believe that open source needs a full refreshment from the original “guard”, and I’d hate to see all the far more positive (not all old guard are bad people nor have done anything bad, but it’s time for a refresh) people get dragged down because of them.

     Thank you for being one of the positive voices in open source. We can all contribute, big and small, to a friendlier and more helpful environment.

     Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Wednesday, 07-May-2025 22:54:19 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • David Revoy
     • Tirifto
     @davidrevoy @tirifto @lgm Quite interesting that you trust Devault; https://sizeof.cat/project/the-devault-report/
     
     Incredible - Drew even goes so far to accuse rms of desiring to rape minors (is Drew deflecting something?).
     
     (Of course in reality, rms is only into adult woman).
     
     People who were mistaken in the past are not allowed to realize they were mistaken and change their mind and therefore deserve to be forever cancelled huh?
     
     
     I don't see how LGM inviting him to discuss a technical subject is something to be concerned about.
   • Embed this notice
     David Revoy (davidrevoy@framapiaf.org)'s status on Wednesday, 07-May-2025 22:54:20 JST David Revoy

     in reply to

     • Tirifto

     @tirifto @lgm Hey Tirifto! It's already well documented ( eg. https://drewdevault.com/2023/11/25/2023-11-26-RMS-on-sex.html ) and I have my own reasons and my own negative history with the FSF because of him.
     LGM deliberately chose to praise something with this invitation. Just something I don't want to waste my time on or be associated with anymore. So I'm moving on.

   • Embed this notice
     Tirifto (tirifto@jam.xwx.moe)'s status on Wednesday, 07-May-2025 22:54:21 JST Tirifto

     in reply to

     • David Revoy

     @davidrevoy @lgm Why? I understand you’re not a fan, but this seems quite harsh. :gutkato_scivola:

   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Wednesday, 07-May-2025 22:59:34 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • 四
     @yon "open source" misses the point; https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html and is an attack on free software for the purposes of licking corporate boot; http://catb.org/~esr/open-source.html
     
     As you can clearly see, it's about removing freedom and replacing it with an efficient development model, funded with donations from proprietary software corporations.
     
     
     The old guard stands strong for freedom and will not yield to corporate demands.
     
     The world is unfortunately not a friendly environment and you *will* be endlessly attacked if you stand for freedom - but we shall stand strong.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Wednesday, 07-May-2025 23:01:19 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     • David Revoy
     • Tirifto
     @davidrevoy @lgm @tirifto https://www.wetheweb.org/post/cancel-we-the-web
   • Embed this notice
     Alexandre Oliva (lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br)'s status on Thursday, 08-May-2025 05:23:07 JST Alexandre Oliva

     in reply to

     • Federico Mena Quintero
     • Matt Wilcox
     • Charles ☭ H
     • Martin Owens :inkscape:
     • Lasse Fister
     • Halla Rempt
     standing up to bullies and against the injustice they promote through violence nearly always makes sense. that they choose violence to force others to join their character assassination campaigns is already a red flag that you don't wish to be on their side. that they demand swift submission, to deny people a chance to look into the facts, is more evidence that their violent tactics are not means to promote justice. now, of course, being a victim of their violence says nothing about you or anything who stood on their path is innocent; only looking into the facts can accomplish that. which is why they have to stop you so forcefully from seeking facts, isolating their victim and anyone else who defies their violence. it's really ugly, and it takes courage to stand up to them. but for anyone who cares about justice and against censorship and violence, standing up to them is the only move that makes any sense
     
     (there are also plenty people tied up in false beliefs about the victims, induced by violence; whether they're mere victims of falsehoods or accomplices to the campaign of violence hinges on how they respond when called out for the violence they're participating in)
     
     CC: @graphicore@post.lurk.org @lgm@post.lurk.org @halla@kde.social @celesteh@lgbt.io @federicomena@mstdn.mx @doctormo@floss.social
     
   • Embed this notice
     Matt Wilcox (mattwilcox@mstdn.social)'s status on Thursday, 08-May-2025 05:23:08 JST Matt Wilcox

     in reply to

     • Federico Mena Quintero
     • Charles ☭ H
     • Martin Owens :inkscape:
     • Lasse Fister
     • Halla Rempt

     @graphicore @lgm @halla @celesteh @federicomena @doctormo More practically and usefully: Why put yourself in the situation of “picking a side” on a clearly controversial issue, where multiple orgs have seen enough to officially cut ties, when there are surely many other people who could enjoy a spotlight and benefit the actual topic - without the risk? Why choose to do this? Pragmatically, does the move make sense?

   • Embed this notice
     Lasse Fister (graphicore@post.lurk.org)'s status on Thursday, 08-May-2025 05:23:10 JST Lasse Fister

     in reply to

     • Federico Mena Quintero
     • Charles ☭ H
     • Martin Owens :inkscape:
     • Halla Rempt

     @lgm @halla @celesteh @federicomena @doctormo

     I’m following this discussion.

     Can you explain to me where https://stallmansupport.org is so wrong. Is it completely wrong or just partially? And vice versa, is the “report” completely right?

     I also had the impression the “report” was written in a manipulative language and publishing it anonymously doesn’t support it either.

     I’d be interested in a discussion that is not so emotionally loaded, and I’m open to arguments. I see and get to feel that you are upset.

   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Thursday, 08-May-2025 15:29:06 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • LucKey Productions
     @LucKeyProductions >The open source definition is an almost exact copy of the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
     Yes, which was in turn a pointless re-writing of the 4 freedoms - the end result are too many requirements that are confusing and that are actually *looser* and therefore allow the users freedom to be subverted with a crafted proprietary license.
     
     >GNU accepts free software require "that you change the name of the modified version [or] remove a logo"
     Asking people to change the project name and/or logo if they change the software is reasonable, provided such change is not onerous (i.e. requires hand editing thousands of files), as that does not infringe freedom 3, as swapping out a logo or changing a project name (even to <name>-ng) does not prevent the user from being able to make any change they want.
     
     Changes are not guaranteed to make the software better - they may make it worse - and it's not fair for a developer to have their reputation tarnished by a dodgy edit of their program with the same name (while a dodgy edit under a different name is unlikely to be be mistaken as being from the developer).
     
     
     When it comes to distribution and/or re-sale of unmodified versions, it would be a nonfree requirement to require that a logo or name is changed (but it would be entirely reasonable to require that any of such distribution mark in some reasonable way that what is being distributed is x program unmodified from developers y, by 3rd party z).
     
     >which the DFSG and OSD do not (seem to) allow for
     The OSD & DFSG have the exact same wording that allows for such under section 4; "The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software."
     
     You now see the problem with the DFSG and "OSD"?
     
     They're too long, so people don't even read to section 4!
     
     >One might therefor argue open source is in fact more strict in demanding freedom of the software as a whole than free software is.
     As can be seen in the table you linked; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-source_software_licenses?useskin=monobook#Approvals the "OSI" has approved multiple proprietary licenses, thus "open source" is clearly not about demanding freedom and has other goals.
     
     As for the licenses the "OSI" have not approved, but the FSF has approved as free license - such lack of approval by the "OSD" appears to be lack of interest rather than a disapproval.
   • Embed this notice
     LucKey Productions (luckeyproductions@c.im)'s status on Thursday, 08-May-2025 15:29:07 JST LucKey Productions

     in reply to

     • 翠星石

     @Suiseiseki The open source definition is an almost exact copy of the Debian Free Software Guidelines. GNU accepts free software require "that you change the name of the modified version [or] remove a logo", which the DFSG and OSD do not (seem to) allow for. One might therefor argue open source is in fact more strict in demanding freedom of the software as a whole than free software is.

     https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html#not_just_code
     https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#packaging

     Note that the three organisations disagree on the approval of several licenses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-source_software_licenses#Approvals

   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Thursday, 08-May-2025 15:33:02 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • Federico Mena Quintero
     • Matt Wilcox
     • Charles ☭ H
     • Martin Owens :inkscape:
     • Lasse Fister
     • Alexandre Oliva
     @lxo @mattwilcox @graphicore @lgm @celesteh @federicomena @doctormo I would like to point out that slanderous accusations and lies are not violence, although it seems that the people who make such accusations will indeed turn to violence if that assists with microsoft and co's goals to put an end to freedom.