Conversation

Notices

1. xianc78@gameliberty.club's status on Sunday, 17-Nov-2024 08:18:42 JST xianc78

   • Rusty Crab
   • Angry Sun
   • 翠星石

   @ooignignoktoo @RustyCrab @Suiseiseki @sun This guy is just taking everything Richard Stallman says as gospel, not realizing that the is a reason why the community split back in 1998. Personally, I think the "open source" movement also has flaws, but Stallman using the term "free software" to define his idea of software respecting user's freedom was a terrible mistake. FOSS seems to take the best of both worlds.

   • xianc78@gameliberty.club's status on Monday, 18-Nov-2024 00:10:35 JST xianc78

     in reply to

     • Rusty Crab
     • Angry Sun
     • 翠星石

     @Suiseiseki @RustyCrab @ooignignoktoo @sun I know that the open-source movement has corporate interests involved but the other part of the reason why there was a split was because people thought that Stallman was simply advocating for freeware, due to the name confusion. I'd argue that there wouldn't be a split if Stallman simply called it the "Libre Software Movement". And it's not like Stallman is against people profiting off of "free software".

     https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

   • 翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Monday, 18-Nov-2024 00:10:36 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • Rusty Crab
     • Angry Sun
     @xianc78 @ooignignoktoo @RustyCrab @sun >This guy is just taking everything Richard Stallman says as gospel
     Incorrect.
     
     Before repeating anything rms has written, I determine if it is correct (the amount of time's he's correct when it pertains to software is incredible, although for other areas, he's often incorrect).
     
     >not realizing that the is a reason why the community split back in 1998
     The community was rather subverted by those who wanted to pander to the corporate interests who don't like it when people are even advised about what's considered right and what's considered wrong in a free community and to think about it and the weak willed followed them in the wrong direction.
     
     The road is faster sure, but that road is going to proprietary hell (total enslavement of humanity).
     
     >Stallman using the term "free software" to define his idea of software respecting user's freedom was a terrible mistake.
     Free has always meant freedom, so I don't see how it could be a mistake to refer to free software as free software.
     
     You can also say libre software, or frei software or whatever word means free if you're too afraid to say that free means freedom.
     
     >FOSS seems to take the best of both worlds.
     It is actually the worst of both worlds - it induces the reader or listener to assume that free means gratis and that "open source" means source-available.
   • xianc78@gameliberty.club's status on Monday, 18-Nov-2024 01:04:27 JST xianc78

     in reply to

     • Rusty Crab
     • Angry Sun
     • 翠星石

     @RustyCrab @Suiseiseki @ooignignoktoo @sun "Libre" or "Liber" is Latin for "free", as in freedom. It's a common Latin root word. Words like "liberty", "liberation", "liberalism", "libertarianism", "Liberia" come from it.

   • Rusty Crab (rustycrab@clubcyberia.co)'s status on Monday, 18-Nov-2024 01:04:28 JST Rusty Crab

     in reply to

     • Angry Sun
     • 翠星石
     @xianc78 @Suiseiseki @ooignignoktoo @sun open source people are notoriously terrible at naming stuff. Hardly anybody on the face of the earth knows what "libre" means and it's a terrible nothing word to brand yourself with. "Free Software" at the very least gives normies an idea of what you're talking about even if their perception of it won't be initially accurate. That's better than them having no mental foothold by hearing a phrase they can't even spell. The details come later and that's okay.