Help the GNU Project and the Free Software Movement!

Help the GNU Project and the Free Software Movement!
gnu.org/help/help.html

Other urls found in this thread:

gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html
gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.es.html
gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Sorry, why should I use linux os and open source software?

this reply made me cry :,(

gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html

No, fuck the GNU Project. I go to install Debian yesterday and the firmware for my wifi card is not included. Oh no, I have to pay for that firmware wow that's weird! Oh wait, no I don't. It's literally available for free on Debian's website. So wow, the entire purpose of not including the FREE FUCKING FIRMWARE was so this Stallman faggot could put a footnote in the installation process and make it take longer. That was the only fucking impact.

Fuck this faggot, his time as passed.

I have problems understanding English, could you please repeat everything in Spanish?

This is now a RARE stallman thread.
Post RARE stallmans.

gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.es.html

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.

Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called "Linux", and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.

There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called "Linux" distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.

And what was the result of this non-free firmware written by Intel? Perfectly stable, secure, and reliable firmware. There are no known security bugs. Intel probably paid a small team a gracious salary to build the software, the money put food on those people's table, and their kids will probably go to college some day because mommy or daddy saved up for them from their generous salary working at intel.

Fuck you Stallman you marxist fucking kike

...

it's the best

wew lad

Fuck GNU and it's freetard followers

Why do you hate Freedom?

It's not free if I can't sell it

But you can.

Free Software is about Freedom not price; selling/buying software doesn't restrict your freedoms, so it's still Free Software: gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html

Free software means software that respects the user's freedom.

There are four essential freedoms that the user of software should always have:

Freedom 0 is the freedom to run the program however you wish.
Freedom 1 is the freedom to study the source code of the program and change it to make the program do as you wish.
Freedom 2 is the freedom to distribute copies of the program to others when you wish. This includes republication of the program.
Freedom 3 is the freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others when you wish. This includes republication.

If you have all four of these essential freedoms, then the program is free software, which means that the social system of the distribution of the program is an ethical system that respects the freedom and community of the users.

If one of these freedoms is missing, then the program is proprietary software, meaning that it keeps the users divided and helpless, and gives the developer power over the users. This is an injustice. Proprietary software should not exist and should not be used.

If you want to have freedom, the only way you can have it while using computers is by rejecting proprietary software.

By that definition BSD license is free too.

Can I rebrand GCC and use it embedded in my program without making my program open-source? Can I rebrand GPL software, close it's source and sell it?

No. So it's not free.

MIT license is free. GPL is not.

The only restriction the GPL imposes on developers is on the "right" to deny others the freedoms the developer enjoys.

>restriction
Could you please repeat that word again?

Clang will take over and the only GPL software worth some respect, GCC, will be done.

It is. However, there are some dangers, since companies can take the program and make it proprietary. With the GPL companies can't do it, so in the end the GPL produces more freedom than BSD.

>MIT license is free
Can you take MIT licensed code, change the name, put it on your github as-is without the MIT license and claim it as your own?

No they can't the source is still there, and the original program still be free.

What companies can do is make the program better and sell it for money, which benefits EVERYONE.

> Change the name
Yes
> Claim is as your own
No, and most countries don't allow that no matter what license.

And yes, it's still not as free as Public Domain, but much, MUCH better than GPL.

how does a program benefit anyone when you can't control (or even know) what the program does, when you can't fix a bug yourself and share copies of your fix? proprietary software isn't a benefit, it's a disease

>No
Then it's nonfree. That SOME countries don't let you do this anyway isn't an excuse. SOME countries have export laws which can restrict your freedoms, but even the GPL explicitly states that you must not put those limits on other uses of your software.

If it didn't benefit people, they wouldn't buy it.

For example, someone throwing a rock at me doesn't benefit me, so I don't pay anyone to throw a rock at me.

However, someone selling me an ice cream DOES benefit me (it's tasty), so I pay the ice cream man and get the ice cream. I had the freedom to not buy the ice cream, but because I liked the ice cream more than the money the seller was selling it for, I chose to buy the ice cream.

There are no people with guns forcing other people to buy software, they are free to refuse to do so.

>cocaine benefits peiple
>MUH FREE MARKET

GPL doesn't forbid selling free software.

GPL forbids selling closed source software.
I see, people are FUCKING ADDICTED TO PROPRIETARY SOFTWARE.

>GPL forbids selling closed source software.
No it doesn't. Show me the clause.

>reading comprehension
Here's what you said:
>If it didn't benefit people, they wouldn't buy it.
Here's what you didn't say:
>If it didn't benefit people, they wouldn't buy it.*
>*with some exceptions that invalidate my entire argument that people don't buy things without benefit

> You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy. This License will therefore apply, along with any applicable Section 7 additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts, regardless of how they are packaged. This License gives no permission to license the work in any other way, but it does not invalidate such permission if you have separately received it. ... A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an "aggregate" if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate.

People buy drugs for their benefit. They're not an exception, and we should give money to them. The exception is when someone forces them to take drugs, in which case the one who forced them should be punished by having to pay for all the expenses caused by his/her offence.

>people are forced to use GPL software

Besides, while we're at it, healthcare and education should be privatized too, in fact, everything except military, police, judicial system and roads.

Still waiting for the clause where it says "GPL forbids selling closed source software.".

> People are forced to use GPL
I didn't say that.
Here's my initial statement:
> It's not free if I can't sell it

I an not giving my money to that hypocritical liar.

Free? Yeah, as long as my conform to the GNU License terms. I prefer to simply be free from your communist ideology.

see

Here's not your initial statement:
> It's not free if I can't sell it*
> * as closed source software

I won't read more legalese, here's the trials instead:


Legal status

The first known violation of the GPL was in 1989, when NeXT extended the GCC compiler to support Objective-C, but did not publicly release the changes.[75] After an inquiry they created a public patch. There was no lawsuit filed for this violation.[76]

In 2002, MySQL AB sued Progress NuSphere for copyright and trademark infringement in United States district court. NuSphere had allegedly violated MySQL's copyright by linking MySQL's GPL'ed code with NuSphere Gemini table without being in compliance with the license. After a preliminary hearing before Judge Patti Saris on 27 February 2002, the parties entered settlement talks and eventually settled.[77] After the hearing, FSF commented that "Judge Saris made clear that she sees the GNU GPL to be an enforceable and binding license."[78]

In August 2003, the SCO Group stated that they believed the GPL to have no legal validity, and that they intended to pursue lawsuits over sections of code supposedly copied from SCO Unix into the Linux kernel. This was a problematic stand for them, as they had distributed Linux and other GPL'ed code in their Caldera OpenLinux distribution, and there is little evidence that they had any legal right to do so except under the terms of the GPL. For more information, see SCO-Linux controversies and SCO v. IBM.

In April 2004, the netfilter/iptables project was granted a preliminary injunction against Sitecom Germany by Munich District Court after Sitecom refused to desist from distributing Netfilter's GPL'ed software in violation of the terms of the GPL. Harald Welte, of Netfilter, was represented by ifrOSS co-founder Till Jaeger. In July 2004, the German court confirmed this injunction as a final ruling against Sitecom.[79] The court's justification was that:

It would never use the term "closed source", RMS hates the terms opensource and closed source

When I said sell it I mean SELL IT ANY WAY I FUCKING WANT. God you're pissing me off. Fucking commies. I'm not wasting any more time with you, I've got a fucking job, a concept which is very foreign to you.

>he mad

You still haven't answered btw. But go ahead, be mad instead.

if you sell it in a way that restricts the use of your software, your software is nonfree

>commies
see

Isn't it ironic that the proprietary software developers call us communists? We are the ones who have provided for a free market, where they allow only monopoly. If the users chooses this proprietary software package, he then falls into this monopoly for support. The only way to escape from monopoly is to escape from proprietary software, and that is what the free software movement is all about. We want you to escape and our work is to help you escape. We hope you will escape to the free world. The free world is the new continent in cyberspace that we have built so we can live here in freedom. It's impossible to live in freedom in the old world of cyberspace, where every program has its feudal lord that bullies and mistreats the users. So, to live in freedom we have to build a new continent. Because this is a virtual continent, it has room for everyone, and there are no immigration restrictions. And because there were never indigenous peoples in cyberspace, there is also no issue of taking away their land. So everyone is welcome in the free world, come to the free world, live with us in freedom. The free software movement aims for the liberation of cyberspace and everyone in it.

So as a developer, why wouldn't I want my software to be proprietary? I would have absolute control over what is done with my software, why would I want it to be free?

>So as a white american, why wouldn't I want my my niggers to be slaves? I would have absolute control over what they do, why would I want them to be free?

Modders would make enhancments to your software. It would evolve faster, giving users more options to their personal preferences, and you could scoop up the modders to add more talent to your team, . Also good pr

>Freedom 2 is the freedom to distribute copies of the program to others when you wish. This includes republication of the program.
>Freedom 3 is the freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others when you wish. This includes republication.
Im sorry, but these violate the intellectual property rights of the original programmers.

Im all for the first two, but if you want to respect users rights you must also respect the programmers rights.

>intellectual property rights
Such thing doesn't exist. There is copyright, patent law and trademarks, but there are no "intellectual property rights". "intellectual property" is a brainwashing smear tearm like "piracy" made up by companies to troll the society.

Only cucks use linux

That why you should use GNU/Linux.

>"intellectual property" is a brainwashing smear tearm like "piracy" made up by companies to troll the society.
Nice, care to offer proof of that statement other than NEET-marxist drivel?

Back to work wagie, your boss needs to pay for his third monthly vacation. Employees are slaves, they'll wake up someday.

Employees arent slaves, they are free to quit whenever they want and receive a payment in exchange for their work. It doesnt matter how much you want to obfuscate terms to justify being a NEET, it wont work.

Tick tock wagie. You need plenty of rest to make your boss lots of money. You have bills to pay back to jew companies after all. I for one will enjoy writing my novel that'll be a best seller and a part of our culture.

Slaves != Propriatary software, fucking get real. You're more or less saying any propriatary product is akin to slavery. You NEET freetards need to spend a day in the real world

>I for one will enjoy writing my novel that'll be a best seller and a part of our culture.
Since when is Sonic fanfiction a best seller and part of our culture.

So essentially what a paid dev team would do, minus the "pr"(I've yet to see software getting any sort of notable publicity based on what the simpletons working on it are saying)?

But proprietary software = slaves, always.

>So essentially what a paid dev team would do, but for free
>I can't see that being a benefit for me

Says the freak leeching off his "wagie" parents. Literally the only reason you've made it as far as you have is because your parents, I'm assuming begrudgingly and full of regret given how much of an autistic neet you've shown yourself to be,I'm I'm almost certain their efforts to pay for their bosses time off paid for your lifestyle. Get a fucking job, grow the fuck up, you like most other freetards on this board are nobodies with no power, stroke or influence in any arena, solely because of your manchild screeching antisocial horseshit

Why, because some sheltered freak like you or RMS says so?

i volunteer filling out forms. can't do much complicated because i'm mental.

A voluntary workforce is inconsistent, in most senses of the word, be it in terms of commitment, technical proficiency, personality and so on. If I want to make a serious career out of software, I'd want a fully committed, trained and professional workforce that will dedicate a consistent amount of time on development, not just whenever they are bored and it takes their fancy for a few days

I donated 20 dollars to FSF so I guess I'm a commie now

So does freedom 1. Why didn't you complain about that? Is it because you don't have a grasp of how copyright works?

Hey Stalin, Free software is the most open market thing that exist. Capitalism leads to progre, you are typing yopur commie propaganda on a computer you bougth with money.

-->/leftypol/

>So does freedom 1. Why didn't you complain about that? Is it because you don't have a grasp of how copyright works?
Because when you sell something you have no right on what modifications the buyer does to the product to fit his needs. If I buy a car nobody can tell me I cant replace specific parts, or paint it, etc.

Of course I would approve of freedom 3 with qualifications. There would have to be a sufficient amount of modification for you to be able to distribute it.

>CAR ANALOGY
>The owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
>...
>(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
Thank you for answering my questions.

>Citing a piece of paper that has no power in itself
It's like you are asking to be bullied.

>copyrights are natural rights

I don't support Hit/er. Go being a Dictator somewhere else, we at Sup Forums value true freedom.

Freedom of choice.

are you stupid?

IMO the number one priority should be creating an alternative to jewgle ads

>you can't install proprietary drivers otherwise you're a slave!!1
>here have our only other """" free"""" option!
>not dictating what's good and what's bad.

Are you stupid, user?

are you trying to tell me that proprietary software is a good thing?

No.
The freedom to use it is.

>the freedom to enter a BDSM relationship is TRUE freedom

see
and You fags are why i hate the FSF, even if i mostly support the ideology.
Literally Hit/er.

When you use proprietary software, you're not free; you're under control.
That said, Nobody, not RMS, the GPL, the FSF or any other freetard would forbid you to use a piece of software.

i'm free in making my choice what works best for me.
The software is not free, i see that, i however am.

When you start a nonfree program, it doesn't work for you. You work for it. You do exactly follow what the developer (Hit/er) wants you to do.

Choosing to be a nigger in slavery isn't freedom. Freedom is absense of slavery.

how is this gnu related?

if i don't like it i have the CHOICE to either use another proprietary OR a FLOSS alternative.

If i however restrict myself to ONLY FLOSS, i'm.. restricted. Dictated from a freedom preaching idiot what i am when i do not.

Do you see my point?
you can relate to this post too.

Why are you acting like RMS forces or dictates anything? All he does is spreading awareness, asking you to value your freedoms and explains why proprietary software is bad for you and bad for society.
Proprietary software is a problem, it almost always contains malicious, nasty things, is riddled with botnet or collects your data in order to sell you further. Software shouldn't be like that and if there is a better, Free program, you wouldn't choose a proprietary alternative. Wouldn't it be nice when all your software would be Free Software? You could fix bugs or remove nasty things on your own and share the results with others?
Now, do you feel dictated right now after reading this post?

I'll help once they reduce the source code for their `true` command below what I could do in assembly.

When you restrict yourself to use only free software, you're truly free and you're fighting for a better future. When you don't restrict yourself to free software, you give up and surveillence, data collection and over evil gains more and more power over your digital life.

like i said, i can mostly relate with FSF's philosophy.
I'd like to have FLOSS all over my system sure. However i feel the urge to use Linux as far as i can for all my needs. So i did decide to install Steam. So i do use nvidias (at least now superior) drivers.
With the freedom preaching idiot i did mean GNUfags in the first place, however RMS is disliked by me, because he does his ego-trip thing with the fugly GNU/Linux thing. I will not accept someone who has the needs to slap in a users face how much he contributed just so he can sleep better at night. No other developer has the need to be recognized that much, "just" because he/they contributed to the OS. That's another unrelated issue tough, i don't want to discuss in this thread as it would derail it too much.

>inb4 drm
>inb4 i'm a slave again
>inb4 Linux is a kernel

>when you restrict yourself you are free

It's not just that Stallman is trying to get credit for himself. He wants people to understand why Free Software is important. If one thinks that Linus is the only guy behind GNU/Linux, then you miss out on a huge part of the philosophy.

>you need to be enslaved to a linux system to be free!!!
>but using proprietary software is evil!!!

pick your poison, freetards are slaves to their own ideology.
I'd rather use something that weks, propietary or not.

i do recognise his contributions without having to say (get dictated how it should be named, it's already established ffs) a shitty prefix every time.

I do also recognise the contributions from the X11/wayland developers. Nice, huh?

Linus is also not my hero, or i'd like to sepict him as one. However i do recognize his contributions.

GNU/Linux*

How do I watch movies and shows without nonfree codecs?