Conversation
@sun EFF wasn't worth donating to for about the same time as FSF. Over a decade.
0
0
1
Blurry Moon
sun@shitposter.world
“X only allows us to reach millions and millions of people. Also here’s some generic left wing buzzwords”
0
1
4
@VD15@pl.valkyrie.world @sun@shitposter.world
I still don't get how people of color is good but colored people is bad
They mean the same thing
1
0
1
@sun EFF was never really good, some things they did were good but largely ineffective. They don’t care about software freedom for the most part unfortunately.
1
0
1
Blurry Moon
sun@shitposter.world
@augustus yeah their thing now is being a generic left wing organization and trying to pretend they still care about “electronic freedom”
2
1
3
augustus pugin 🌖
augustus@shitposter.world
@sun millennials in leadership positions in organisations was a mistake
1
0
4
Blurry Moon
sun@shitposter.world
@augustus i assume teachers are the reason so many people turned into slacktivists
0
0
2
@sun Some people really can't pick a struggle
0
0
1
@histoire3 @sun Because that phrase has history
1
0
1
1
1
2
0
0
0
Hildegunst von Mythenmetz of programming
condret@shitposter.world
0
0
0
sky-rider of the spaceways
spacemanspiff@noauthority.social
0
0
1
2
1
5
2
0
0
@sendpaws @VD15 @Idoru @sun That statement happens to be true, as the very concept of "FOSS" is proprietary compromise and Rossman primarily pushing proprietary software is something that is extremely "FOSS".
Although, you were trying to make the ludicrous claim that a proprietary software pusher has done more for freedom than the Free Software Foundation!
The FSF still exists and is still doing things.
Although, you were trying to make the ludicrous claim that a proprietary software pusher has done more for freedom than the Free Software Foundation!
The FSF still exists and is still doing things.
0
0
0
the ball probably got rolling on this when they went off rez back during the massive KF deplatfooming campaign. they called it out for what it really was, which gained them tons of backlash. they legit sound more pozzed than current-day aclu now
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
@phnt @VD15 @Idoru @sun it's more; the FSF seems like it's really stuck in a certain timeframe when the world has been moving at warp speed and that's on top of GPL V3 being the catalyst for permissive license shit.
Remember: the latest macOS replaced GNU Nano with the old Pico editor and there is no other reason you'd see it swapped except for pettiness.
2
0
1
0
0
1
@sendpaws @VD15 @Idoru @sun
>there is no other reason you'd see it swapped except for pettiness.
Same reason why gcc was replaced with llvm. Licensing. GPL is a legal nightmare to deal with when you are using it inside products and that's by design. If you don't wanna have issues down the line, because someone made a few lines of changes in it for macOS and forgot to publish them, you simply get rid of the problem altogether. Apache is way less of a legal nightmare.
>there is no other reason you'd see it swapped except for pettiness.
Same reason why gcc was replaced with llvm. Licensing. GPL is a legal nightmare to deal with when you are using it inside products and that's by design. If you don't wanna have issues down the line, because someone made a few lines of changes in it for macOS and forgot to publish them, you simply get rid of the problem altogether. Apache is way less of a legal nightmare.
2
0
0
Taylan (GNU+Feminism Cat)
taylan@fedi.feministwiki.org
@sun Honestly... They have a point. For non-autists, there are serious barriers of entry for free software or maybe rather a serious barrier of exit from the walled gardens. Or both.
1
0
1
@sendpaws @phnt @VD15 @Idoru @sun The FSF is "stuck" in the timeframe of software being free - that's the whole idea.
Most of the weak licenses were written before the GPLv3 and the total obsession about v3 makes no sense - nobody obsessed over GPLv2 vs GPLv1, when the GPLv2 made drastic changes.
The GPLv3 says more or less the same things as the GPLv2, except it adds more exceptions for certain ways a proprietary library is used in a proprietary OS, unlike the GPLv2, allows not providing the key for digital handcuffs for commercial-only hardware, allows a website for a written offer and allows torrenting object code.
All the problems apple has with the GPLv3 apply identically the GPLv2 - it has more recently just been feasible to turn inferior implementations proprietary instead, as those implementations now exist.
>Proprietary malware changes to inferior proprietary malware that had been replaced.
Damn - clearly the obvious thing to take away is that you shouldn't use macos and you should use GNU instead.
Most of the weak licenses were written before the GPLv3 and the total obsession about v3 makes no sense - nobody obsessed over GPLv2 vs GPLv1, when the GPLv2 made drastic changes.
The GPLv3 says more or less the same things as the GPLv2, except it adds more exceptions for certain ways a proprietary library is used in a proprietary OS, unlike the GPLv2, allows not providing the key for digital handcuffs for commercial-only hardware, allows a website for a written offer and allows torrenting object code.
All the problems apple has with the GPLv3 apply identically the GPLv2 - it has more recently just been feasible to turn inferior implementations proprietary instead, as those implementations now exist.
>Proprietary malware changes to inferior proprietary malware that had been replaced.
Damn - clearly the obvious thing to take away is that you shouldn't use macos and you should use GNU instead.
0
0
1
Taylan (GNU+Feminism Cat)
taylan@fedi.feministwiki.org
@phnt @sendpaws @VD15 @Idoru @sun
It's a legal nightmare for companies that want to exploit their customers, yes. So, the companies have to create alternatives. How is that a bad thing about the GPL?
If the GPL allowed the companies to exploit their customers, then those companies would have had a much easier time doing so, and wouldn't have had to put resources into creating alternatives, which ironically fueled some competition and consequent innovation even in the GPL software, like when GCC saw a surge of improvements in response to Clang/LLVM showing significant superiority in certain aspects.
Of course, it would have been even better if the companies didn't insist on exploiting their customers, and just put their resources into improving GPL software. Unfortunately, exploiting people is too profitable and humans are dumb and evil.
It's a legal nightmare for companies that want to exploit their customers, yes. So, the companies have to create alternatives. How is that a bad thing about the GPL?
If the GPL allowed the companies to exploit their customers, then those companies would have had a much easier time doing so, and wouldn't have had to put resources into creating alternatives, which ironically fueled some competition and consequent innovation even in the GPL software, like when GCC saw a surge of improvements in response to Clang/LLVM showing significant superiority in certain aspects.
Of course, it would have been even better if the companies didn't insist on exploiting their customers, and just put their resources into improving GPL software. Unfortunately, exploiting people is too profitable and humans are dumb and evil.
1
0
1
@phnt @sendpaws @VD15 @Idoru @sun Please stop claiming things that are not true.
GPLvX is trivial to deal with when you use it inside products - you include the written offer and you send the user the source code that you have when they request it - or for each version, you per-prepare the source archive and shove it on the website (if you can't do that, you are totally incompetent).
If you made a few lines of changes for macos, that is right in the source code you have - so you won't have any problem sending that.
Apple never liked how GCC was under GPLv2-or-later, but there was no other compiler available that didn't cost a fortune and have restrictive license conditions, so they went with GCC.
Not long after LLVM development started, apple realized that a compiler that they could make proprietary was now possible and therefore they funded development.
The Apache-2.0 has mostly the same sort of requirements - you need to retain licensing information (as hard as retaining the source code).
GPLvX is trivial to deal with when you use it inside products - you include the written offer and you send the user the source code that you have when they request it - or for each version, you per-prepare the source archive and shove it on the website (if you can't do that, you are totally incompetent).
If you made a few lines of changes for macos, that is right in the source code you have - so you won't have any problem sending that.
Apple never liked how GCC was under GPLv2-or-later, but there was no other compiler available that didn't cost a fortune and have restrictive license conditions, so they went with GCC.
Not long after LLVM development started, apple realized that a compiler that they could make proprietary was now possible and therefore they funded development.
The Apache-2.0 has mostly the same sort of requirements - you need to retain licensing information (as hard as retaining the source code).
0
0
0
@taylan @sun There is no barrier of entry - there are no restrictions to stop you from getting a copy of any of the software.
If you see sharing, community and freedom and are put off, clearly such individual doesn't belong.
Although, there is a serious number of chains, handcuffs and foot-cuffs that chain the used to proprietary OS's.
If you see sharing, community and freedom and are put off, clearly such individual doesn't belong.
Although, there is a serious number of chains, handcuffs and foot-cuffs that chain the used to proprietary OS's.
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
@sun
> Your abortion fund uses TikTok to spread crucial information.
what an odd thing to say. i can see why the ideological enemies get physically disgusted from this.
> Your abortion fund uses TikTok to spread crucial information.
what an odd thing to say. i can see why the ideological enemies get physically disgusted from this.
2
0
2
Blurry Moon
sun@shitposter.world
@kaia it’s just the step right before the organization now expends its effort protecting abortion and not its mission statement. Every single time.
0
0
1
Every single word they've posted is such an obvious tell that they've restructured their entire organization around culture war provocateur slop and nothing else. The word came on down, the remaining 90s libertarians were pushed out, and their mass produced replacements were dropped in.
It probably looked way more organic than I'm describing it as it happened, but the point is that it happened. It looks like it happened pretty fast too.
EFF was always an OP, mind you. The founders had neocon connections that are difficult to explain otherwise. It was always designed to completely fail; every single one of it's initiatives in the last 3 decades has been for naught and the very form computing today takes represents it's utter defeat. But at least it's guys were the token court jesters occasionally allowed to tell the truth. No longer!
It probably looked way more organic than I'm describing it as it happened, but the point is that it happened. It looks like it happened pretty fast too.
EFF was always an OP, mind you. The founders had neocon connections that are difficult to explain otherwise. It was always designed to completely fail; every single one of it's initiatives in the last 3 decades has been for naught and the very form computing today takes represents it's utter defeat. But at least it's guys were the token court jesters occasionally allowed to tell the truth. No longer!
1
0
0
I wonder just how much of this is connected to the rise of Lunduke, who has taken over the tech truthtelling position but has shitcoated it with zionist connections and braindead andy niggo-ass politics.
0
0
0
mangeurdenuage 
🌿 
mangeurdenuage@shitposter.world
@sun It's all so tiresome. You just have to say "everyone", it literally means "everyone".
0
0
0
0
0
0