>his free software ideology is basically communism applied to software
>He openly supported that Bernie commussy as president
>He totally ignores that developers have to earn some money somehow since he lives with his prizes money
>Despite point 1 and 2, he says he supports capitalism
>His hair is long and dirty and he should cut it
>Still, Sup Forums worships him like a god.
Why?
Because we're not Sup Forums
I have no doubt in my mind that the only reason he gives a shit about privacy is because he has terabytes on terabytes of cheese pizza but his advocacy for all things free and uncompromising conviction to this philosophy is what I appreciate about him at the least
Still think he's overrated but who else in technology deserves the sticky? memes aside
Torvalds for example, as he's an engineer and not a clown
back to le donald fucking newfag nigger
I still don't know why People associate Freedom with Communism
bernie's ok
you can sell gnu software
you can sell services with gnu software
you don't understand capitalism
i have earnt lot's of money with gnu software
it was easier to learn because I can read the code
He's a duplicitous snake. There are plenty of deft individuals whose talent is undeniable, but most of them are entrepreneurial megalomaniacs who place themselves above the welfare of software.
this
/thread
pic related
it's all the same bro, the only difference is who you're a slave to. what we need a system that keeps the elites locked in a power struggle so the concentration of power does not become too great because then you end up in gulag and some fucker wants to make a handbag out of your skin.
I have a quite unusual view for this board: while I really appreciate Stallman's work as GNU produced a lot of quality software, I think the whole privacy thing isn't a battle worth fighting: I've learnt of criminal people (not big terrorist ones, I mean small criminals like non-professional stalkers, sexual predators or drug dealers) who could've framed if real privacy couldn't be so easy to use for end users, but ended up unpunished because simple things like WhatsApp/Telegram's encryption made their whole machinations undetectable. And we're talking about people who ruined the lives of many kids or young boys.
So my opinion is: who gives a shit if the government knows what hentai I watch or what kind of stupid videos I watch on YouTube, or whatever, I want guilty people to pay for their actions and if privacy about my bullshit is the price to pay, I'll pay it without any doubt.
steve jobs
based RMS
>being this stupid
>lack of cost =/= freedom (as in freedom to do whatever you want with software)
RMS has good ideas, its just he is such an autistic unlikable virgin, he struggles to get his point across
He said memes aside
What's wrong with this?
While i agree, i do believe the type of monitoring that happens needs to be heavily regulated as to not be abused, as it is currently in America.
While complete transparency would be detrimental to the system, some sort of third party consisting of elected third parties would be ideal.
>2017
>Not accepting that men with long hair exists
Privacy may only matter for criminals now, but it quickly becomes your problem too when the government goes totalitarian and decides that you're just as bad as contract murderers and kiddy fiddlers.
Because businesses profit off proprietary software and other anti-competitive practices, and if you're opposed to those practices you must be a commie I guess.
Fun fact: businesses do best when they eliminate the competition, not when they outperform them. It's much nicer to play a game of one than a game of arbitrarily many.
>his free software ideology is basically communism applied to software
Absolute bullshit, he has nothing against charging for software, what he wants is that end users, when having bought software in one form or another, can do whatever they want with said software, which requires the source code.
>He openly supported that Bernie commussy as president
Don't know much about american politics, but could he be worse than Trump and Hillary ?
>He totally ignores that developers have to earn some money somehow since he lives with his prizes money
You don't need to write proprietary code to make money, go visit Github, a ton of code there is written by people paid to do so, everything from kernels, operating systems, compilers, frameworks, applications.
>Despite point 1 and 2, he says he supports capitalism
In what way doesn't he ?
>His hair is long and dirty and he should cut it
Sounds like your typical Sup Forums dweller to me
>businesses do best when they eliminate the competition, not when they outperform them.
We all know how intel has been "performing" while AMD wasn't in the game for half a decade
Yeah never said the current way of doing things is the best. I think there should be an international committee for monitoring cybercrimes or crimes that are planned on the net, as right now NSA only cares for US's sake ignoring any crimes that don't regard them. Also, other nations don't have access to their monitoring tools so if a crime happens in, say, Germany and something NSA could hack could solve the issue, it could remain unsolved as NSA could decide to not closely cooperate with German law.
Bernie is actually educated, not a mentally challenged manchild like tramp is
Do you subscribe to any kind of higher power? Be it God or a general notion of karma? Even if you tell me you don't, most people in their heart of hearts do to some extent. That's one way to palliate your concerns.
If you're feeling overly righteous, you can also place the blame on incompetent police work as the culprit, rather than encryption. I can't think of any scenario that involves a victim where there isn't some real world evidence that can be tied to the crime. If a case rests entirely on conversations that may or may not have happened, it probably wasn't a very strong one in the first place. Don't be so quick to give up your freedoms (as well as the freedoms of your peers) out of simple vindictiveness.
Why should I buy software if source code is available and the first user who gets it can redistribute it as he wants?
I don't buy this whole thing: we should be focused on having a better and non-totalitarian state rather than making the state less effective in case it turns bad and totalitarian. It's an absolutely non-constructive way lf thinking in my opinion.
Another thing I wish could be enforced better, both in US and EU, is to use justice more against military and police. In my country militaries only can be judeged by their military court, which often covers all the shit they do. A lot of Kiddy fiddlers are soldiers but always go unpunished here.
because you don't have internet access and you need to mail-order a physical disk with the code and binaries on it
This could work in 1998
>>his free software ideology is basically communism applied to software
No, it is not.
>>He openly supported that Bernie commussy as president
And?
>>He totally ignores that developers have to earn some money somehow since he lives with his prizes money
No he does not, there are people RIGHT NOW who make their livelihood writing free software.
The problem is that he is an ideologue, nothing is ever good enough and unless his specific ideas about free software are implemented he will fight against the people on his side (see the Linux kernel GPL3 debacle).
It has gotten to a point where his opposition to proprietary software is becoming harmful, since no company in the right mind would take him seriously.
People don't know what "Communism" means.
this
Sorry if I step in the discussion, but what if the crime is something like, a paedo convincing a child to send him nudes? I know parents should control children's access to Internet, but as a father I can assure you it's hard nowadays, you never know if your child grabs a tablet or smartphone to do strange things when you're ot around...
Because he is fat!
Maybe you should buy the service of having the software customized for your needs.
Pretty simple, it's the only activity that actually requires money anyhow.
Making copies and handing them out really basically does not cost anything worth anything.
I can't say with all certainty that no crime goes unpunished but pedophiles are very rarely (so rarely that I don't think I'd be remiss in saying "never") discreet offenders. They usually exhibit long and diverse offensive behavior that very often gets them caught, or at least leaves a trail of evidence linking to them. Police can catch them on any number of things that don't involve encrypted communications, even if they did use encrypted communication for one perpetration.
I know that doesn't mean every pedo gets caught but there are thousands of cold cases of every kind, from murder to molestation, or some that even end with the guilty party getting away scott free, but that's part of having a reactive judicial system rather than proactive, and that's part of living in a free society. If you want to debate this point, that takes a large leap away from encryption as it relates to justice and revolves around your core philosophies on justice itself.
it's not really communism though
>perfectly described terry a. davis
>implying he's not a god amongst men
>Why should I buy software if source code is available and the first user who gets it can redistribute it as he wants?
Because the guy you buy software from moves away from the 'secret sauce' mentality and instead provide the service of writing software.
It's not as if proprietary software is a great solution for anyone, piracy is rampant and will always be, so you are not really stopping redistribution, you are at best hiding your source code.
And I don't subscribe to the notion of 'proprietary being evil', it's just a really limited and frankly outdated way of thinking, which comes with a shitload of problems like invasive DRM which in turn is a massive security leak, lack of trust as you have no way of verifying what the software actually does beyond what you see.
>>Despite point 1 and 2, he says he supports capitalism
This is correct. You think this is contradictory because, like most people with strong opinions about economics, you have no idea what capitalism or communism are.
>>Still, Sup Forums worships him like a god.
>Why?
Because there has to be someone unwilling to compromise. Copyright law is inherently asinine and anti-civilization.
>international committee
Lost me there.
/thread
>gpl
>communism
i laugh when ever i see this because it shows that Sup Forums has no idea about economics
if anything BSD is communism because they take from the devs without any reinbursement
IE playstation 4 and nintento switch and apple
the GPL is actually more like socialism because it requires upstream support and or sharing the source before you can make a buck off their hard work
back to middle school kids!
>if anything BSD is communism because they take from the devs without any reinbursement
You are even worse then the people who claim that the GPL has anything to do with communism.
If anything (although I don't see the point in comparing licenses to political systems) then BSD is anarchy, "do whatever you want with this, but leave me out of it", that is pretty similar to the NAP.
>the GPL is actually more like socialism
No its not, the GPL actually works.
>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.
RMS (3 March 2008)
Communism is dumb for the real world but it work really well with softwares
Communism has LITERALLY NOTHING to do with free software.
These to concepts have no relation to each other what so ever.
Obligatory
Thanks, ESR. We know you think free software is libertarianism, but it's not.
We the people have a right to see the code we run. As well as change it and reproduce it for others.
Firstly I do not know what an "ESR" is.
Secondly what fucking similarities exist between the GPL license and communism? (spoiler absolutely nothing)
And WHY THE FUCK are you trying to compare a political system to a software license.
>Firstly I do not know what an "ESR" is.
Fucking newfags
en.wikipedia.org
>Secondly what fucking similarities exist between the GPL license and communism?
Moving the ownership of the means of production away from the company owners to the people.
Bernie is a hypocrit and senile.
>his free software ideology is basically communism applied to software
In communism, there is a ruling class who gets to do everything, and a lower class that barely scrapes, because equality and equity.
In Libre software, there isn't a leader. There is forking, there is sharing, there is collaboration.
Go back to Winblows, plebbit and just stop coming here.
>No its not, the GPL actually works.
Socialism as a broad concept is a nice idea. It's the shitty 20th century Marxist kind that people won't let go of for some reason.
>In communism, there is a ruling class who gets to do everything, and a lower class that barely scrapes, because equality and equity.
Not according to Marx.
>In Libre software, there isn't a leader. There is forking, there is sharing, there is collaboration
That's communism, according to Marx.
>Moving the ownership of the means of production away from the company owners to the people.
isn't that basically the opposite of communism ala the soviet union
>isn't that basically the opposite of communism ala the soviet union
According to communist theory, socialism (aka the state owns everything), is a necessary step towards communism (aka communes/communities own everything) because the bourgeois wont give it away freely and it must be taken by force.
>Moving the ownership of the means of production away from the company owners to the people.
But companies are using GLPed software?
And are funding/producing GPLed software?
This does not make sense in the slightest. By using the GLP you are not "moving the means of production from a company to the people creating the software" you are opening up the software, giving access to people who need/want it.
In exchange for the people who use your software also opening up their software.
I get that you are trying to argue that companies are loosing the power and people are gaining it, but that has nothing to with t"he means of production".
>socialism (aka the state owns everything)
wikipedia says
>Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production,[10] as well as the political theories, and movements associated with them.[11] Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective, or cooperative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity.[12] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[13] Social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.[5][14][15]
>Socialist economic systems can be divided into non-market and market forms.[16]
saying socialism = the soviet union is like saying capitalism = america
You are confusing "communism in theory" with "how communist states function in reality".
>In communism, there is a ruling class who gets to do everything, and a lower class that barely scrapes, because equality and equity.
That is how "how communist states function in reality".
>there isn't a leader. There is forking, there is sharing, there is collaboration.
That is "communism in theory".
Same here . The USSR was not communist (stay with me here) it was a country trying to establish communism, that attempt failed (badly, like always) and resulted in the death of many millions coupled with famines and suffering of many more.
I want Sup Forums to leave
>But companies are using GLPed software?
They don't own the software.
>And are funding/producing GPLed software?
Yes, but they also, more than often, own non-GPL software that coexists. They rely on the GPL software as well, that's why they contribute to it. Not out of goodness of their heart.
This is why Google is a major contributor to the Linux network stack, for example, because they want a bunch of things in it that will benefit them. For example increasing the TCP initial window size to 10.
>By using the GLP you are not "moving the means of production from a company to the people creating the software" you are opening up the software, giving access to people who need/want it.
And you remove ownership entirely, so yeah, you're pretty much giving it away to the proletariat.
>I get that you are trying to argue that companies are loosing the power and people are gaining it, but that has nothing to with t"he means of production".
It definitively does, according to marxist capitalist theory, all products are the result of means of production + labour. By removing the ownership of means of production from the bourgeois (aka [intellectual] property and owners and copyright holders) and giving it to the proletariat (the workers [users and developers]), you're basically implementing communism.
I want communists to leave.
And if you seriously believe that Sup Forums are the only ones arguing against communism then you have to realize that communism is almost universally despised (for VERY good reason) in the west.
>saying socialism = the soviet union
But I never said that. I said that the Soviet union was a (form of) socialist state.
The real idea behind "free" software is thus:
Many employers in Silicon Valley like to see candidates with GitHub accounts, thus giving people the incentive to publish their work there for people to steal. But, what reason is there to hire the person if that company can just steal what they have on GitHub? People willing to let others have their work for free are probably going to accept less salary as well.
>saying socialism = the soviet union is like saying capitalism = america
But that's completely true though. The soviet union created socialism and America created capitalism.
>The soviet union created socialism and America created capitalism.
Both of these claims are FALSE.
Good lord, read a history book.
>Sup Forums are the only ones arguing against communism
It's not that communism is being criticized, it's that it's constantly brought up where it is irrelevant by paranoid retards that think literally fucking everything they don't like is the red menace. They are the unwitting civilian arm of the Thought Police.
>It's not that communism is being criticized, it's that it's constantly brought up where it is irrelevant by paranoid retards that think literally fucking everything they don't like is the red menace.
Communism certainly has nothing to with free software, yes.
>They are the unwitting civilian arm of the Thought Police.
What?
Not him (I'm and ) but the concept of state socialism is used interchangeably with Soviet-style state capitalism (aka Marxist-Leninism).
so why can't we discuss the merit of ideas themselves? intellectual integrity is a two way street
>The soviet union created socialism and America created capitalism.
i'm pretty sure reality existed before the cold war, user.
>so why can't we discuss the merit of ideas themselves?
I'm not following? I simply replied to the simplistic question "what does [the concept of] free software have to do with communism", it is all about the ownership (or rather, the lack of such ownership) to the means of production.
>the concept of state socialism is used interchangeably with Soviet-style state capitalism (aka Marxist-Leninism)
The idea of socialism existed long before the USSR.
Claiming that "the USTT created socialism" is just false, it was one of the earliest countries to attempt to create a socialist state.
>The idea of socialism existed long before the USSR.
We're weren't talking about socialism as a broad and generic concept in the first place, we were talking about Marxist communism and then someone () appeared to be confused about Marxist-Leninism aka Soviet Union and I tried to point him in the right direction.
I just wanted to point out that whoever believes that the USSR created socialism is wrong and needs to read a history book.
Socialism is a generic term and is often used in reference to state socialism aka socialist capitalism, so they wouldn't be entirely wrong.
In the context of discussing communism, he wouldn't be wrong in saying that actually.
You hope for the best but prepare for the worst. Any tool you hand to a government is one that could be used against you an election or two from now. Powers are abused. Elections go south. Shit happens. The trick is having measures in place for when they do.
>his free software ideology is basically communism applied to software
I like the GNU GPL. It can be a reasonable license for things, unless someone is releasing libraries on it, because that ends up forcing to license your software on the same license. When it's not library, it does a good job at protecting everyone from misused software and fucking others over.
>He totally ignores that developers have to earn some money somehow since he lives with his prizes money
Well, he sold GNU Emacs for money back in the day and lived off that.
Bernie isn't a communist. He never claimed to be.
I just wanted to point out that you're a fucking retard and should kill yourself immediately.
Posting will be impossible after the third "/thread'
/thread
Then how would countries not in US use NSA's info Sherlock? I think international committee >>> US playing world policeman
>Freedom with Communism
Well, because communism IS freedom.
> a system that keeps the elites locked in a power
Why not to get rid of elites altogether?
>Telegram's
Oh please, really? It's completely controlled by Russian CIA, owned by the same person who made Russian facebook (which is infamous for it's privacy issues) and it's advertisements are all over Russian state TV channels. Privacy? You mad.
>In communism, there is a ruling class who gets to do everything,
Communism is classless.
>According to communist theory
It's not a communist theory. There are TONS of 'theories' out there. What you described is Lenin's opinion on this which was dogmatised in USSR.
>communist states function in reality
You cannot say how communist stated function in reality because there never WAS a communist state and never WILL because there could be no state in communism.
>and resulted in the death of many millions
That was a result of neoliberal reforms in 90s.
>for VERY good reason
Oh really? "Capitalism" was also UNIVERSALLY DESPISED as you put it in the west until French revolution. It was despised for a VERY good reason, eh?
This. Actually the first apostles were described to live in the way socialism actually should have worked, fuck Marx
> It's socialism
> Who cares
> Real hackers don't care about money
> Good goy keep chasing those shekels
> K
BERNIE CAN STILL WIN!
>What you described is Lenin's opinion on this which was dogmatised in USSR.
That's exactly what I've been saying throughout this thread.... Just grep for "Marxist-Leninism" ffs.
this
When why do you call it 'communist theory'?
"According to Marxism-Leninism..." would be correct.
>>his free software ideology is basically communism applied to software
Maybe there is nothing wrong with communism as long as it is effective and is effective, could you think of that?
>is effective and does not hurt people
>as long as it is effective and is effective
for it to be effective control needs to be exerted and when control is exerted people are harmed
pretty simple babe
>communism as long as it is effective and is effective,
Communism is not about 'effectiveness'. Communism is about freedom. Do you really believe that we should produce tons of shit we produce today (cars, smartphones, pharma etc) at the same rate and then force you to but it even if you don't need it? Or those resources could be used to do something useful (space exploration anyone?).
Go back to Sup Forums
>When why do you call it 'communist theory'?
Read the chain of posts, I was trying to keep it simple rather than autistic since the poster I replied to was obviously a retard.
>free software ideology is basically communism applied to software
that's where you're wrong
free software just is a different business model than software licensing
it involves selling support for your software while customer can make sure your solution is not botnet, won't automatically go away if you go out of business, customer is not locked into buying new versions etc
it's just about making sure software is not crap, this has nothing to do with communism
where do you retards even get this idea
It's oversimplification IMO. Don't do that.
>his free software ideology is basically communism applied to software
gnu.org
It's a meme that we take half seriously
>about to cross the street
>someone yells: HOLD ON, A CAR IS COMING!
>you: REEEE STOP TELLING ME WHAT TO DO
>It's oversimplification IMO.
In order to teach these american kids anything, you have to start from their own level in my opinion.