Vaccine passports: https://archive.is/9psCP
Linus's comments: https://archive.is/pXzn9
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (65)
sorted by:
They would already have banned right wing people long ago - if they could.
Fortunately for us, the four essential freedoms apply to all, without exception.
For that we have to thank Stallman, who has been coincidentally (or maybe not?) thrown under the bus by pound me too about a year ago.
Oh, and between the people and organizations cancelling him there's also Red Hat, which is starting to dominate the Linux ecosystem with the old tactic of forcing everyone to use their stuff (SystemD and Wayland most notably) as to choke any alternative.
Red Hat's owned by IBM. Some of the big companies, which have, or are backed by interests that are not in favor of the user are getting more and more involved, and controlling.
we're getting real close to fifth freedom territory
F-Droid, an open-source Android repository, did that already. So did some cucked fediverse devs.
https://archive.vn/0OVyA https://reclaimthenet.org/f-droid-bans-gab-app/
https://archive.vn/O9hfV https:// f-droid. org/en/2019/07/16/statement.html
Stallman bit the MSM bug awhile ago and went Orange Man Bad, I haven't kept up with him since. He got thrown under the bus for being a creeper and a making creeper posts, so its pretty much a political charge. Remember, liberals get the bullet too.
I fully expect him to regret inventing GPL allow "bad people" to do "bad things" any day now. It is likely a move to discourage developers from using GPL over BSD license.
An important distinction in GPL is that there is no difference between developer and end users, both must be given the same freedoms. In practice it means if I as an end user legally obtained a copy of your software, binary or not, I have the right to demand the source code too. It has to be in machine readable form, so no boxes of print outs, says so in the license. In turn, any software derivative I made based on the source code I obtained must also be made available to whoever obtained a copy of my software legally.
The last what drives BSD license people mad, they can't lock it down and see it as an impediment on their developer freedom. Lolbertarians butthurt. The switch from GPLv2 to GPLv3 (through the GPLv2 or later clause) caused so much butthurt, Apple gradually started removing all GPL licensed software from the OS. The Linux kernel itself is GPLv2 and will always be.
Lastly the GPL is only effect when making transmissible copies. If I made modifications to a GPL software for myself but never made a copy for anyone else, I can do whatever I want with it, since there are no copies made to anyone else.
GPL doesn't care if you're linking static or share, that would be LGPL, designed for shared libraries. I don't see how BSD preserves freedom when you don't even have any guarantees to the source code if it can be relicensed any time by a fork, particularly 3 clause and 2 clause BSD versions. The 4 clause version just needs you to put in an ad for the BSD license but doesn't require anything else.
If anything, GPL would be the militant commune that aims to protect itself from subversion, while BSD would be the hippie commune that can't even understand the need to protect itself.