There are lots of other 
moments there.
"Single payer economies leads to bad things like Bolshevism and Stalin"
@UlyssesT@hexbear.net Let's hear your rant
There are lots of other moments there.
"Single payer economies leads to bad things like Bolshevism and Stalin"
@UlyssesT@hexbear.net Let's hear your rant
I don't even need to say this but
FOSS has many, many problems but contributing to monopoly is not among htem.
Do not use the term FOSS, it conflates Free Software with Open Source
as it should, because open source software should be free. GNU can shove it.
They are seperate because they both have different motivation, tactics, and origins.
Open source could also be used to describe a development methodology (public repo that accepts pull requests/patches with a license that allows redistribution). Free means that the user is entitled to all 4 freedoms (use, study, modify and distribute, or redistribute).
The Free software movement works to create a world of entirely free software. Open source initiative does not make that claim. OSI is more pragmatics (at a cost) while the FSF is more ideologically focused (likewise)
We have this distinction because it matters and that it reduces confusion. GNU doesn't go "shove it."
on the other hand, maybe GNU should shove it? viral licensing is a nice hack, but its not like they're the only community that produces free/open source software. many groups share the objective, even if they don't all agree with the utility or importance of viral clauses. obviously, OSI is pretty much only there to make the concept more palatable to corpos, but i don't see any reason to be loyal to GNU.
I think you're being too reductive. Besides the fact that software packages produced by GNU are historically significant (without GNU there is no OSI or even linux), "viral licensing" is a not a good way to describe copyleft (what would you say about Creative Commons then?) and different forms of copyleft exist.
The GNU Project is not just software, it's a philosophy and political stance about people's right to control their computing. The ultimate aim of the project is to produce a Fully free operating system. People are "loyal" (if we accept that wording) to GNU because they believe in the idea of a completely free operating system that only uses free software.
I'm not here to antagonize you, have whatever personal (albeit critical) opinions about GNU or the FSF or whatever group in the FOSS community as you wish (believe me, I have my own hot takes). I just wanted to point out why the GNU Project is significant if not fundamental to the entire Free software ideology and misconceptions about it.
GNU can absolutely go shove it when they keep trying to shove GPLv3 down my throat.
Open Source is a corporate plot to dilute the meaning of software freedom
Actually, the gnu licenses (gplv3 and agplv3) are the best ones. Incredibly based licenses.
It's why google has stripped any typical userland component away in android and has rewritten or is rewriting everything in the MIT license. So that they can make it proprietary when and where it suits them. And of course they're doing the same for the kernel with Fuchsia.
gpvl3 sucks lol
Increasingly of the opinion that the only acceptable license is Public Domain.
What term should be used instead?
Free Software or Open Source Software, depending on which one you're talking about. They are not the same thing and should not be grouped together.
Yeah but I like shorthand things and Stallman's a pedophile, idk, wish the space wasn't dominated by misogynistic weirdos
Stallman's personal failings in other areas doesn't discredit his essays on Free software. I don't care for Stallman but I don't want other people in this space to suffer more than they already have for his blunders.
The free software world is more open (pun) than it has ever been. The misogynists are on the way out lest they want someone like Drew Devault to write an essay exposing them (Hyprland)
Edit: in the last 2-3 years after the pandemic.
Yeah I just like FOSS as a term and a concept and I'm not really sure what's to be gained by tossing it for FLOSS. Maybe this is naive but I've found when a term speaks to people it catches really easily on the internet, like CSAM for CSAM being almost universally recognized overnight. I guess I just feel like if FOSS was worth throwing out for reasons other than "Actually I call it GNU/Linux" it would already be done; or it would feel more compelling to do so
I don't like either FOSS or FLOSS. But I see where you're coming from. I think FOSS is not worth arguing over in terms of changing what people already within the community say (compsci is already filled with strange terms), but I also want to clearly communicate the ideas of the 4 freedoms to outsiders coming in which FOSS doesn't do to those already unaware. "Our community" is already really niche as it is and also has bad actors who want to erase the freedom aspect as much as possible and using unclear and confusing terminology is a real tactic (look at people calling LLMs and machine learning "AI")
Acronyms don't explain anything by themselves to people who don't already understand them. Your example works because it's already self describing, FOSS isn't as much.
Bro I need me some four principles of the people shit. That's badass, I ain't been in the social aspect of Libre software for a while. We need a Sun Yat Sen emoji
YES PLEASE
No, don't toss it for FLOSS, FLOSS is the same thing and has the exact same problem as FOSS. Stop grouping them together entirely.
Drew Devault didn't cover half of Varxy's nonsense. I use Hyprland because I can do pretty rainbow borders but asking for help is a bad idea, given their nightmare community.
this is weird. in my circles, FOSS refers exclusively to Free Software. I've never heard it used in a way that mixes it with non-free but OSS software. people contrast FOSS with OSS to mean "possible licensing conflicts because the corporate policy disallows copyleft licenses" and the like. whereas, they use OSS to mean "totally kosher to use regardless of corporate policy". I might just work in more licensing sensitive positions though.
If you just mean Free Software which preserves all four fundamental software freedoms, the correct term is Free Software or Free (libre) Software. Open Source is a corporate plot to dilute software freedom by conflating it with mere source availability.
oh yeah, for sure. I just meant that FOSS is generally only used to describe Free Software. the acronym isn't great but I think the intent is the same.
If you mean Free Software say Free Software, don't let that OSS sneak into the acronym
fair
I'm confused, are you saying you think FOSS means "Free or Open Source Software"?
Yes, because that's literally what the acronym stands for.
I'm even more confused. it means "Free and Open Source Software" everywhere I can find and I've only ever heard it in contrast with OSS, especially by license conscious devs who want to avoid copyleft.
Avoiding copyleft is an act of violence
I work for a paycheck not because I like the positions the companies I work with take. personally? yes, I wish we outlawed everything else.
No, FOSS means Free and Open Source Software.
It is used to refer to software that is both free and open source.
Being open source is a necessary but not sufficient condition of software being Free, so Free Software already means that. FOSS is a corporate plot to conflate software that is merely open source with software that is fully Free.
Free means Free. Open Source means Open Source. FOSS refers to software that are both of those things.
Free means Free is an empty tautology that means nothing.
Free means software which preserves your four fundamental software freedoms: the freedom to run the program as you wish, the freedom to study and modify the program, the freedom to redistribute the program, and the freedom to distribute your modifications to the program.
Open source only protects part of the second freedom.
You know what? I thought the "Free" in FOSS meant only free as in free beer, while the Open Source part was the free as in free speech part, but upon further investigation I concluded that you are right. Have a nice day.
open source software has problems such as what?
The most popular open source licenses are insufficiently militant and just create a new commons for capitalists to loot.
I treasure every piece of hate mail I get for my choice of the AGPLv3 in my projects, instead of the MIT or BSD licenses like so many others managing projects in the same niche.
lmao get fucked nerds
Incredibly based.
Too little of it and prominent assholes (Stallman et al.)
No idea about shit, why Stallman is an asshole?
Incredibly prolific harasser of women and talks a lot in official communiques about ephebophila
There was some good article I found the other day, I'll try and retrieve it as an edit later
For fuck sakes,
This is the article
Correction: Stallman is not part of open source initiative. His essays on Free software are seperate as well as the GNU Project and FSF.
The separation between Free software and open source software is a very narrow one. Most open source projects use the GPL. Just because he doesn't write code and isn't in a leadership role in GNU or the FSF doesn't change the fact that he is a very influential figure.
I agree it's really narrow in practice. But the basic idea is that Free/libre pertains to your 4 freedoms while open source is about technical craft through a superior design philosophy. There are also historical considerations as OSI was derived from the initial Free software movement and was historically designed to appeal to corporations.
Stallman is very influential for his pioneering of Free software and the GPL/copyleft. But that's what it's limited to now. If you want an example, I contribute to GNU Guix which has put out a statement against Stallmans continued role in representing GNU.
People have very conflicting feelings about Stallman because the campaign for his removal was to be frank, a total clusterfuck. I'm not a Stallman supporter by any means, but it was bad.
that's a good statement and totally underscores my own feelings towards the man.
I feel so conflicted about Stallman. he's ideologically correct that free software must be protected from encroachment by capital -- but such a fucking creep/asshole on literally everything else.
There's so many better representatives for free software, to put it gently, Stallman has long outlived his usefulness.
agreed, he just has an important legacy that can't be ignored.
I don't know why one needs to make a moral judgment on him. He existed and what he created is important but it's not like we're the jury on his trial.
I'm comfortable making a moral judgement on the pedophilia comments
Probably my most problematic fave of all time. He's such a lovable dork and right about everything a good 95% of the time, but then when he's wrong he's very very wrong
I still think I could fix him though.
He's really not
some open source projects are very gate-kept and dude-bro centric
that sounds like an issue with specific open source projects and not open source software as a whole
i would agree except it keeps happening so somewhere there is a fundamental problem even if that problem is societal
😭bruh be so fr. not trying to tell me closed source projects are better
yeah actually come to think of it software was a mistake