https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/oct/21/trump-group-agplv3/
These "software freedom" organizations are litigious copyright trolls in disguise. The AGPL license is even more restrictive than the already restrictive GPL license. What do these "software freedom" organizations want? They want own all the copyright to all software, and lock up all software under AGPL restrictions. Sounds like software tyranny to me. In the interests of real software freedom, the AGPL should be declared null and void.
real software freedom
Software does not need to be free because it is not a human being. The AGPL protects the user's freedom, which is the only freedom that matters. Making sure that the developer cannot use software protected by the AGPL to restrict their users is not a restriction, it is a guarantee of freedom.
This is why we should fight against GPL tyranny by using anti-GPL open source licenses such as the Microsoft Public License: https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:MS-PL
>>2
No.
>>3
Yes. Software freedom is all about the users who are running software on their own computer.
When will the MPL reach the levels of IPL, LPL and CDDL.
>>2
While i share your dislike for the AGPL you somewhat overdo it in my opinion. Developers should be free to choose whatever license they want for their code. Even shitty ones that'll cause everyone down the road a ton of headache and will eventually lead to a diminishing userbase.
>>3
You hit the nail on the head. The AGPL is in the best interest of users. Not developers or administrators. The problem with this is that it's the latter group who makes things happen so to speak. Stepping on their toes isn't exactly the best idea (just look at the invidious dramas over such non-issues like 1 line of footer text) but to each their own.
>>4
Quit trolling. Noone in their right mind is going to use the MS-PL outside of well... trolling purposes.
>>6
MPL is the Mozilla Public License.
>>8
Exactly, i was confused about this as well. I have no idea what the poster really meant but i figure it was another weak attempt at trolling in regards to microsofts license.
>>7
Even the most prolific developer will only develop a handful of software, while they will be the users of a thousand other software. They are overwhelmingly more "user" than "developer". Why would they still take the side of the latter over the former?
There shouldn't be a distinction between "users" and "developers." That's the true point of the free software movement.
>>11
If that's the point failure is 100% certain. There will always be a distinction between users and developers. One part does the work and other... well, it uses said work. It's a parasitic relationship and that's never going to change. Pretending both parties are equal just enables further exploitation.
>>10
Simply because "developer" is the important part in the equation. Without "developers" users cease to exist. "Developers" without users? Not so much.
I hate free software fags so much.
Be glad someone uses your work.
>>14
That only makes sense for people writing software out of boredom or self esteem issues. Everyone else couldn't give less a shit if there is anyone using their products as they are build to fulfill their own needs. Every user beyond that is lucky to get a free ride.
>>12
Failure for what? The true point of the free software movement is to promote freedom for users. The distinction between developer and user is irrelevant to the freedom of the users.
>>16
Good luck with that. Freedom of users in regard to information technology in general is an illusion at best. This so called "freedom" is pointless for users. What are they going to do with access to sourcecode? Absolutely nothing more than staring at it in confusion and maybe annoying the next best person they think is a "computer wizard" with stupid questions.
https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=120618313520730&w=2
Now rather than seeing us as friends who can cooperatively improve all codebases, we are seen as foes who oppose the GPL. The participants of "the race" are being manipulated by the FSF and their legal arm, the SFLC, for the FSF's aims, rather than the goal of getting good source into Linux (and all other code bases). We don't want this to come off as some conspiracy theory, but we simply urge those developers caution — they should ensure that the path they are being shown by those who have positioned themselves as leaders is still true. Run for yourself, not for their agenda.
>>17
What is the point of freedom of speech when most people just mindlessly repeat what they were told on the evening news? It is completely useless for law-abiding citizens.
With free software, the users control the program, both individually and collectively. So they control what their computers do (assuming those computers are loyal and do what the users' programs tell them to do).
With proprietary software, the program controls the users, and some other entity (the developer or “owner”) controls the program. So the proprietary program gives its developer power over its users. That is unjust in itself; moreover, it tempts the developer to mistreat the users in other ways.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html
>>12
You'll notice that the best software has users occasionally contributing. Those really aren't always distinct groups.
>>21
Those "users" contributing are actually developers. Weighting may vary but a sole user has nothing to contribute outside of maybe testing and feature suggestions with the actual work being done by someone else. I agree that there is some overlap but the by far largest chunk of users are mere consumers. That is not necessarily something horrible but i absolutely fail to see why i would owe them something.
>>15
Wow, who has the ego issues huh?
Software licenses are cancer because the work you did by figuring out a solution to a problem doesn't have to be reinvented, it's not even your own work, you were just a transistor for God. So fuck you sense of ownership over intellectual property.
>>23
"transistor for God"... *notsureiftrolling.jpg* In regards to "the sense of intellectual ownership": Sure, why not, lets fuck it. I am not bothered the slightest what happens to it. It's not any "sense of ownership" that's defining reality here, it's peoples general lazyness.
I couldn't give less a shit if someone had access to my solutions but as long as they aren't willing to produce them on their own it'll be on my terms. My terms being i'd to see even a slight chance of getting something back and with a lot of people that's simply not going to happen because it would mean investing resources. Resources they'd rather use on themselves.
Yeah, yeah, setting a positive example and all that jizz... This is the real world and it'll get you nowhere. Trust me, i know what i am talking about.
>>20
Seems about right, the person giving other a free ride is obviously a horrible human and should be treated as such.
>>23
On an afterthought i agree with you at least on the licenses being cancer. I'd really like use code i happen to come across without having to become a lawyer and without having to follow any silly restrictions and/or requirements. This includes being forced to release source code when i don't feel like it for whatever reason though.
>>25
It is about the people who do not give others a free ride.
>>27
Well, now i am confused. What is this supposed to mean then? That people who posses a certain skill and the self control to do something with it are in some form obligated to give random strangers free rides? I mean that can't be the point of it, can it?
OK, if one equals developer with big, greedy, scummy corporation there might be a bit to it but otherwise? Even then it's kinda meh. If said corporation is that big, greedy and scummy why not just not use their crap instead of harping on about the injustices of life? Everything can be cloned and replaced. It just takes enough people with enough skill and will power. Isn't it somewhat the peoples fault big, greedy, scummy corporation can get away with it?
>>22
More correctly it's about removing artificial barriers to becoming a developer of the software you use.
>>29
It's really possible to argue against this. If ones entitled to or if it's a good thing if one would be is another question though. In a circle of developers it obviously makes a certain amount of sense. You give something and you get another thing back one way or the other. Mere users certainly don't fit the picture though.
They gain nothing and are hardly going to contribute much of anything. Like i said if they can be arsed to even get productive at all it'll mostly be testing, suggestions and maybe attracting other developers to the project. I admit it's kinda nice when someone is happy with what you did too but then some nice and fuzzy feeling alone is not going to get you very far.
*not possible - my brain is a swiss cheese...
>>1
This is yet another attempt to silence Trump by using deplatforming tactics. This "software freedom" organization is yet another front organization of the anti-Trump movement.
>>32
Paid by Soros, obviously.
>>32
All Trump has to do is publish the source code and put the correct copyright on it. There's no reason for him not to comply, he's not being silenced.
Yknow, fuck it.
Public Domain software license.