Wow.
Quote Tweet
Statement of FSF board on election of Richard Stallman (RMS): u.fsf.org/3bf
2
10
101
Conversation
He is sorry that people are angry, you see.
A way to avoid tarnishing the FSF reputation due to RMS's mistakes would be... not to have him on the board?
3
19
136
In Italian we call this a "sviolinata".
Besides the horrible "he is too good to kick out, even if he pushes others out" cliché... does anyone actually think RMS's strategy worked out?
Where is all this user-replaceable software? What did it accomplish?
4
4
77
Open Source clearly succeeded. It's paying my salary.
But Free Software?
What device can you actually modify the behavior of thanks to the might of the GPL? What large application?
Even if it were ok to ignore the misbehavior, why would you want to keep following his strategy?
6
7
80
What device can you actually modify the behavior of? Anything running Linux.
It is funny to see the people who reveal their real issue is with the GPL, not RMS.
1
1
Linux is GPLv2 rather than GPLv3 so vendors don't need to allow replacing the software. They only need to provide the kernel sources to their users.
For example, it's entirely up to phone vendors to support unlocking the bootloader and optionally verified boot with a custom key.
1
1
1
Most hardware vendors avoided shipping GPLv3 software on their devices. It largely failed at forcing any vendors to permit replacing software.
I think it's fair to ask for an example where it succeeded. There may be some but probably not with major vendors since they avoided it.
1
2
There was far more widespread acceptance of GPLv2. Even Apple heavily used it and were contributing to it.
GPLv3 pushed away a lot more than companies too. Linux kernel rejected it. BSDs rejected it. It created a major movement to replace GPL software in general including GPLv2.
1
1
The broader movement based around the GPLv2 is not the same as the movement based around the far more restrictive GPLv3. It pushed away a lot of people.
It helped many people realize they don't actually want to use the copyright system to enforce restrictions on using software.
The question was about the GPL and you are making claims about v3 specifically. Whatever. No one ever rolls a custom OSX for their machine.
And having source as a customer is very useful; the lack of it is what spurred the desire for Free Software.
1
Show replies