* Posts by Chubango

13 posts • joined 18 Jan 2021

Free Software Foundation urged to free itself of Richard Stallman by hundreds of developers and techies


Citation Needed

"Stallman posited that it would have been RIGHT for Minsky to have sex with her, and he couldn't have known she was underage"

He said no such thing. Luckily, even when the controversy first came up, Vice made a full copy of the email chain. He sees no reason to doubt initial reports about Minsky's supposed encounter and simply errs on the side of caution; Giuffre had been coerced (by Epstein) but it was unclear what role Minsky would have had in harming Giuffre. He seeks information about the deposition to inform himself better of the facts of the case. To me, this is a reasonable amount of nuance for a still-developing story (at the time).

People are falling into a predictably emotional trap now as they did two years ago. I urge everyone to read things closely for themselves as the primary sources are mainly digital and can be freely accessed by anyone.


Here we go again.

The open letter is a joke. It truncates and takes quotes out of context while helpfully leaving citations for anyone who is willing to do the minimum of due dilligence to see the context for themselves. For example, it paints him as a transphobe. He is anything but one and is vocally supported by Leah Rowe, the project lead of libreboot and a transgendered woman. Incidentally, maybe El Reg ought have contacted her instead of just exclusively going with anti-RMS quotes for a bit of balance.

All of this is just a knee-jerk reaction to an opinionated man with a lack of social awareness who nonetheless makes logical and emotionless arguments whenever he can. It is telling that some of the first and most prominent signatories are OSI people, who have historically had a bone to pick with the FSF and GPL, not to mention a google employee and members of foundations with heavy corporate interests (Hi GNOME and Red Hat employees). RMS has never hurt anyone, has spent a lifetime being inclusive and tolerant and is being punished for daring to have an opinion.

I, for one, am thankful for all of his contributions to the FSF and copyleft philosophy and definitely think that he's made the world a better place. So what if I don't agree with him all of the time? He's right about the things that matter and his pedantry on how terms are used in a legal context may be uncomfortable for some but that does not invalidate his principles and lifelong struggle.

Richard Stallman says he has returned to the Free Software Foundation board of directors and won't be resigning again


Friend, you're arguing about whatever else but what I've actually said. Perhaps I should restate it even more bluntly: the four freedoms, and copyleft in general, guarantee that knowledge will remain accessible and useful to people no matter whatever else. The preoccupation that this be the case is very much guided by moral concerns and can be found reflected in just about every single essay put out by RMS, the FSF, GNU and others. While there are practical details to argue over, such as this model not being contrary to monetary incentives (and where I playfully disagreed with the first poster I replied to), this whole discussion has been about philosophy.


Yeah, nah. Please don't compare physical products like a car that require limited materials to be expended to be made to copyleft, which is basically just knowledge. There is no cost in terms of materials or man hours to copy a program and make it available for review and learning.

If the supposition is made that everyone has the right to knowledge without any barriers, then it very much *is* a moral argument. It's fine that you or anyone else might disagree with that supposition but it is entirely valid and consistent with what the FSF and Stallman have fought for during all these decades.

Any before anyone else starts, there is nothing wrong with selling copyleft softrware nor holding copyright over "art" (non-technical bits of code, such as in a game). The belief here is that tools, which is what software is, should be freely accessible because it adds to the sum total of the human experience and creativity. There's countless cases of innovation being snuffed out by patent trolling and copyright; the copyleft movement should be seen through that lense.


It's FLOSS btw

Paraphrasing certain prime minister, "FSCK business!"

Who cares about business and investors? What matters is the moral thing: not only helping yourself but helping your neighbours and having them help you in turn. The beauty of copyleft is that no one is able to exploit it without giving it back. Self-interest means that you contribute what you think is necessary while receiving the benefits of others' own interests. RMS has been on point on this for 30+ years as well as other matters like privacy. If you want a new feature or support, just pay someone for it! No need to deal with black boxes and the whims of copyright owners. That's the real free market, baby.

License to thrill: Ahead of v13.0, the FreeBSD team talks about Linux and the completed toolchain project that changes everything


Says it all

"A lot of people consume FreeBSD as a toolkit to build things, like appliances. For many of those vendors, the BSD license is very important compared to the GPL license, particularly GPLv3."

That's right, corporations "consume" BSD and crap out their own proprietary software without giving anything back. Good for Sony, Nintendo, countless others but not so much for the end-users. Utterly unsurprising that dev time is spent on Linux emulation for binaries so that the poor users can actually have a range of software to run. This is why, as the article states in the opening sentence, "It's not as well known as Linux" and I believe it will continue to be irrelevant.

Google, Facebook, Amazon et al look on nervously as Biden bumps anti-Big Tech warriors into key posts



I don't expect them to be very successful given the inertia, special interests and lobbying. But, still, a man can dream...

US newspaper's 'Biden will hack Russia' claim: A good way to reassure Putin you'll leave him alone


Re: The New York Times?

There were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq :)

Here's something from only a few months ago: the "Caliphate" podcast was complete and utter bunk.

NYT is a great paper but it certainly has its blind spots. Don't trust them blindly but they have also broken many an important (true) story.

Linux maintainer says long-term support for 5.10 will stay at two years unless biz world steps up and actually uses it


Put up or shut up

GKH's arguments seems reasonable. For FLOSS to work properly, it needs to be a collaborative effort. Something for nothing doesn't really work in the long run.

Firefox 85 crumbles cache-abusing supercookies with potent partitioning powers


Re: Firefox 85 hangs

Fine on arch as well.

Must 'completely free' mean 'hard to install'? Newbie gripe sparks some soul-searching among Debian community


GNU's not Unix

No matter how you might feel about design principles, the fact of the matter is that people only pay lip service to the Unix philosophy in the Linux sphere and have done so for at least 25 years. In that time Linux has become more widely adopted, more flexible and easier to use. Meanwhile, Unix purists like the BSD folks have continued to slide into irrelevancy.

Brave bets on the decentralized web with IPFS browser support for a more peer-to-peer approach


>The outcome? It became a haven for child abuse content

This is the ugly side of not being able to take down or moderate content. Many years ago I ran a small file-hosting page that started as something for myself and friends. You would not believe just how quickly people/bots began to upload illegal content of that sort. Ultimately, I got tired of dealing with that crap and just shut down the page.

I'm mostly okay with the current balance of freedom/"censorship" on the net; people can still host their content, no matter how anti-mainstream, if they are really determined while outright harmful content is more or less sensibly dealt with.

Give 'em SSPL, says Elastic. No thanks, say critics: 'Doubling down on open' not open at all


Open source continues to miss the point

Corporations continue to want have their cake and eat it too. Open source is so important that those that benefit the most financially and never give back (remember openssl being basically unfunded for years?). They cry the loudest, too. There's nothing wrong with having a dual license that allows for monetization (mainly through support) and a copyleft version that's for the community/no-commercial-support and can be forked and that perpetually preserves the freedoms of anyone who may one day use a fork.


Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021