How did the ideology of libre/free software get so politicized?

I’ve noticed advocates for exclusively for libre software and actively discourage simple open source software for not going far enough, also want censorship of not allowing any proprietary software to be mentioned, and don’t allow any critiques of the software they use because it’s libre software so there are no faults or bad designs.

I thoroughly enjoy the code purity of what is labelled as libre software, for license I only like the ISC license for freedom. My attitude is if someone changes my code and doesn’t give back, it does not harm me or injury me in any way.

I also believe libre software can be used for the surveillance of other people, libre software does not be default mean privacy. How network software is configured in systems that other people don’t control, it doesn’t matter if it’s open source when people have no knowledge of other networks configuration.

On the principal of freedom, I do support the right to develop proprietary software. The fact that it exists does not harm anyone who chooses not to use proprietary software.

It seems the die hard libre software crowd, not open source people but the ones who want to live in an only GPLv3+ world can start to live in ther own world, their own bubble, and become disconnected losing perspective that which software other people use is not something that should affect your day in any way. Unless someone is both a network engineer and does infosec or something similiar, they’re not in a position to understand fully appreciate how network protocols matter more than a license and code availability.

  • flatbield@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Regarding Trisquel Linux. These guys are trying to make a totally Free (Free as in Freedom) Linux distribution. That is still very hard even to this day. I think you have no idea how hard it is to have say a totally Free laptop. This is for many reasons. So you do kind of insult them by pushing Windows on them. If you do not care about this then use Debian or Ubuntu. I have used Linux for over 25, but I do not use totally Free software because it is not very easy and the trade-offs are difficult. On the other hand I totally support the FSF and their mission. We need people doing the really hard things too.

    BSD. Apple OSX is based on one of the BSDs, maybe FreeBSD. They basically took it made proprietary software out of it and gave very little back. These sorts of licenses encourage that behavior which is basically free loading. If you think that is OK in terms of software you write then your fine. I am not sure I do. Thankfully Linux is protected from that or it would have already happened.

    A worse situation is GitHub. Lot of projects on there do not even state a license which means they are proprietary. So not FOSS. So though people worship GitHub it is not exactly Free Software friendly.

    • lengsel@latte.isnot.coffeeOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you want to focus on license, I’m curious to ask, if people in all different countries take GPL software and make it propreitary, what happens in each country around the world about software licenses? It’s a difference in culture and tradition between the ISC/BSD crowd and the GPL crowd. I am an ISC person. I only care about source code and the license is irrelevent.

      For example, did you know in some countries the bulk of the population only use a pirated copies of Windows, people don’t actualy buy Windows, and venders sell systems with pirated copies of Windows. Microsoft has no legal recourse in several countries so the population pirates Windows. What would the courts do for GPL?

      Are lawyers in every country going to try to sue, when there are places that don’t have laws about software copyright?

      Compliance with GPL is on a voluntary basis. If I set up servers in a country that does not recognize software licenses, steal GPL code and make it closed source, the license is worthless. The license is only effective in countries where corporations can buy influence.

      People have turned license into an idol when has no affect on people that really don’t care. SSH is licenced under ISC or BSD, Apple uses it and gives nothing to OpenBSD for SSH. The OpenBSD project is continuing on perfectly fine and SSH is the built-in default in all operating systems, even though most don’t donate to OpenBSD.

      Mac is based on FreeBSD 4 from 15 years ago, it is unrecognizable today compared to FreeBSD 14.

      • flatbield@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I will say something that may appear counter to what I said. One advantage of permissive licenses is that they are more flexible and compatible over time. Also certain licenses become the thing in certain communities. It also depends on who you want to use your code or library. Most corporations will not use code that is any more restrictive then LGPL. So though GPL and LGPL are interesting if they work, they do not always make sense. It is also why GPL and LGPL should be applied as version 3 or later, not just version 3 so the license can be modified to remain compatible. The other option is to assign your copyright to the FSF so they can make any modifications.

        • lengsel@latte.isnot.coffeeOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I fully reject FSF ad everything they do. I am strogly against Stallman and everything he believe.

          You admit software license only matters in countries that corporations can buy political influence.

          GPLv3 is about ideology forcing people into submssion and some people have turned it into a religion by putting their faith in a license rather than focusing on social structure. It’s about leeching, not protecting. By you advocating for GPLv3+ you are saying freedom can only be protected by tyranny as opposed to working on changing the culture.

          That’s why I always enjoy working with hackers but I dispise crackers.

          Hacking is the root of BSD and hacking helped turn OpenBSD into the most secure operating system. It was done through culture, not a license and punching people in the head to comply with the license. That’s what GPL whackjob retards don’t understand, is the cultural difference.

          “Shut up and hack”, meaning stop complaining and show your work to make the source code better. If you have not submitted a diff, your opinion is pointless.

          • flatbield@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Wow! Why are you so threatened by the 4 freedoms? No one is telling you what to do with your own code. It is rather astounding to be condemning the FSF for an agenda when you clearly have one of your own.

            As far as companies and other actors buying power, that is everywhere. IP laws well that more depends on if the country wants to exploit IP or freeload on other people’s stuff. I cannot say I feel strongly either way.

            • lengsel@latte.isnot.coffeeOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              FSF is a cult looking for adherents to voluntarily submit their ideology of Marxist tyranny.

              I believe in freedom so much that I support the right to develop proprietary software and also ooen source software. While I may choose to run OpenBSD and FreeBSD, I am ok to help fix a Windows problem.

              You a lying by calling them “4 freedoms” similiar to how Islamists, not muslims, but Islamists that say there is freedom in Islam but also advocate for destroying any person who go against Islam.

              Stallman and FSF are leeches, not innovators.

              • flatbield@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                So your so much into freedom that you think that others should not have the freedom to choose the licenses they use on their code and similarly users to decide what code they run in part based on the license? I am not sure your talking anything about freedom.

                • lengsel@latte.isnot.coffeeOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Which part are you calling a hot take?

                  You can disagree with everything I said, I hope you would have your own reasoning for disagreeing.

          • frosty@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            If you have not submitted a diff, your opinion is pointless.

            Please submit your diffs for our consideration so we can decide whether to take your opinions seriously.

      • flatbield@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        GPL compliance is not voluntary. Legal validity has been proven many times. Specific jurisdictions that would require a lawyer in that jurisdiction to give an opinion. The FSF though did look at general treatment of copyrighted works around the world when writing GPLv3. Keep in mind too, that what people do versus what is technically legal varies widely. More then that, global corporations or corporations that are part of a global supply chain will probably have to comply with the rules in the most restrictive jurisdiction. The copyright owners can choose to sue at any time if they find out about a violation. It is of course more likely to occur when a pattern of abuse is found.