[–]▶ No.911325>>911425 >>911553 >>911631 >>912118 >>912502 [Watch Thread][Show All Posts]
tl;dr: faggot tries to sneakily remove a joke made by rms in the abort documentation of glibc, rms tells him to fuck off. Problem is rms is the project leader and a bunch of cucks want to remove all fun from from /tech/ lest someone feel a bit of enjoyment on finding an unexpected joke.
The toxic triggering text: "Future Change Warning: Proposed Federal censorship regulations may prohibit us from giving you information about the possibility of calling this function. We would be required to say that this is not an acceptable way of terminating a program."
https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/753646/f8dc1b00d53e76d8/
>The removal of an old joke from the GNU C Library manual might not seem like the sort of topic that would inspire a heated debate. At times, though, a small action can serve as an inadvertent proxy for a more significant question, one which is relevant to both the developers and the users of the project. In this case, that question would be: how is the project governed and who makes decisions about which patches are applied?
>Toward the end of April, Raymond Nicholson posted a patch to the glibc manual removing a joke that he didn't think was useful to readers. The joke played on the documentation for abort() to make a statement about US government policy on providing information about abortions. As Nicholson noted: "The joke does not provide any useful information about the abort() function so removing it will not hinder use of glibc". On April 30, Zack Weinberg applied the patch to the glibc repository.
>Richard Stallman, who added the joke sometime in the 1990s, asked that it not be removed. The resulting discussion touched on a number of issues. Carlos O'Donell, who has been trying hard to resolve the issue with some degree of consensus, suggested that the joke could hurt people who have had bad experiences associated with abortion. He proposed a couple of possible alternatives, including avoiding jokes entirely or discussing such issues in a different forum. Stallman, however, replied that "a GNU manual, like a course in history, is not meant to be a 'safe space'". He suggested the possibility of adding a trigger warning about functions that create child processes, since childbirth is "far more traumatic than having an abortion".
>Whether the joke belongs in the glibc manual is an issue for the glibc developers to decide and wouldn't normally be of much interest beyond the project itself. But in this case, it raises the question of how the developers make this decision. The project's wiki states that the project "uses a consensus-based community-driven development model". In this case, there seems to be a fairly clear consensus among the actual glibc developers that this joke is not appropriate in the project's manual. Weinberg's application of the patch was based on this consensus.
>Stallman, however, has made it clear that there are limits to the extent to which glibc is consensus-based; his response was: "My decision is to keep the joke". Weinberg stated his refusal to revert the change; Stallman answered: "I stand by my decision to keep the joke". O'Donell apologized for not contacting Stallman directly about the removal, but also stood by the decision to remove it. He asked:
>A large group of developers, serious senior developers, at least 3 project stewards (GNU Developers for the project), are indicating that they do not share your same view on the joke. Please consider their input and work with me to reach a consensus position.
>Weinberg defended his application of the patch:
>I don't think I did anything wrong procedurally. RMS may be the project leader, but he is not a glibc maintainer. His wishes regarding glibc are perhaps to be given _some_ more weight than those of any other individual, particularly when he is also the author of text under dispute, but we have never, to my knowledge, treated them as mandates.
>Stallman was unimpressed, though, and fell back to a pure authority play, saying: "As the head of the GNU Project, I am in charge of what we publish in GNU manuals. I decide the criteria to decide by, too". He later added:
>I exercise my authority over Glibc very rarely -- and when I have done so, I have talked with the official maintainers. So rarely that some of you thought that you are entirely autonomous. But that is not the case. On this particular question, I made a decision long ago and stated it where all of you could see it.
▶ No.911328
>O'Donell repeated that a discussion was underway and that the maintainers did not intend to revert the patch. He also asked whether the change violated any GNU policies --- a question that went unanswered as of this writing. He also stated clearly that the joke would not return in any form until some sort of consensus was reached.
>One could argue that the consensus is already there if one looks at the developers who actually work on glibc; it is difficult to find any of them arguing for the joke's return. The number of people arguing for the joke in general is quite small. That did not stop Alexandre Oliva, who evidently has a high opinion of Stallman's sense of humor, from reverting the change early on May 7 --- his first glibc change in 2018. He did not post his change to the mailing list (and only explained it after being asked); his attempt to justify it as a return to consensus did not fly with O'Donell. This discussion, one suspects, is not done.
>Each project has its own governance model. The "authoritarian leader" model is quite common in this space, with many projects subject to the will of a (hopefully benevolent) dictator who can decide to accept or reject any change. Sometimes that model works better than others; glibc itself improved its processes and inclusiveness considerably when its single leader was replaced by a more consensus-oriented model. Usually, though, such leaders are at least active developers in the projects they manage; that is not the case for the GNU projects. It can be discouraging for a developer to discover that their changes are subject to a veto from on high by somebody who is not otherwise involved with the project's development. The echoes of this action may thus persist in the glibc community for some time.
▶ No.911332>>911562 >>912137
there is thread about it already
also this joke isn't funny
>since childbirth is "far more traumatic than having an abortion"
rms just went full retard here
▶ No.911333>>911338 >>911339 >>911340 >>911342 >>911729 >>911879
SEPARATE YOUR GODDAMN PARAGRAPHS YOU IMBECILE.
I don't care if you're too scared of other anons telling you "le Reddit", your post is nearly unreadable because of your faggotry.
▶ No.911338>>911879
>>911333
NO, ONLY REDDIT DOES THIS!!!
▶ No.911339>>911879
>>911333
They are already separated by newlines.
▶ No.911340>>911582 >>911653 >>911879
Jokes of any kind do not belong into a reference manual, period. It's not even a good joke, you would have to follow US legislation to get it, and that's assuming you even understand that it's a joke in the first place. RMS is just butthurt because the "joke" lines up with his non-software politics.
>>911333
We need a new name like "reddit spacing" for these idiots who never put spaces anywhere. Gay-spacing maybe?
▶ No.911342>>911879
>>911333
Reminder to report faggots who post "reddit spacing" and derivatives of it.
▶ No.911343
meh it's annoying to read unimportant information in man pages because they're already long anyway (and even then they're still often lacking important details)
▶ No.911344
We already had this threat, you shitposting spunk guzzler.
▶ No.911345
sage for duplicate thread
>>910997
▶ No.911415>>911422
Are there any good software political jokes?
▶ No.911422
>>911415
Besides "fortune" ? :^)
▶ No.911425>>911635
>>911325 (OP)
WTF happened to his arm?
▶ No.911435
▶ No.911442
>VS No fun allowed snowflakes
>(((Weinberg))) defended his application of the patch
>snowflakes
jews
▶ No.911459>>911461 >>911640 >>912150
Abortion does not you make "unpregnant"
It makes you the mother of a dead baby.
▶ No.911461>>911470
>>911459
>edgy christfags
lmao
▶ No.911470>>911472
▶ No.911472
▶ No.911473
>we now have two threads up about this
First one didn't turn out how you liked so you created another. Classic.
▶ No.911488>>911491
tl;dr: faggot tries to sneakily remove a joke made by rms in the abort documentation of glibc, rms tells him to fuck off.
Problem is rms is the project leader and a bunch of cucks want to remove all fun from from /tech/ lest someone feel a bit of enjoyment on finding an unexpected joke.
The toxic triggering text: "Future Change Warning: Proposed Federal censorship regulations may prohibit us from giving you information about the possibility of calling this function.
We would be required to say that this is not an acceptable way of terminating a program."
https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/753646/f8dc1b00d53e76d8/
The removal of an old joke from the GNU C Library manual might not seem like the sort of topic that would inspire a heated debate.
At times, though, a small action can serve as an inadvertent proxy for a more significant question, one which is relevant to both the developers and the users of the project.
In this case, that question would be: how is the project governed and who makes decisions about which patches are applied?
Toward the end of April, Raymond Nicholson posted a patch to the glibc manual removing a joke that he didn't think was useful to readers.
The joke played on the documentation for abort() to make a statement about US government policy on providing information about abortions.
As Nicholson noted: "The joke does not provide any useful information about the abort() function so removing it will not hinder use of glibc".
On April 30, Zack Weinberg applied the patch to the glibc repository.
Richard Stallman, who added the joke sometime in the 1990s, asked that it not be removed.
The resulting discussion touched on a number of issues.
Carlos O'Donell, who has been trying hard to resolve the issue with some degree of consensus, suggested that the joke could hurt people who have had bad experiences associated with abortion.
He proposed a couple of possible alternatives, including avoiding jokes entirely or discussing such issues in a different forum.
Stallman, however, replied that "a GNU manual, like a course in history, is not meant to be a 'safe space'".
He suggested the possibility of adding a trigger warning about functions that create child processes, since childbirth is "far more traumatic than having an abortion".
Whether the joke belongs in the glibc manual is an issue for the glibc developers to decide and wouldn't normally be of much interest beyond the project itself.
But in this case, it raises the question of how the developers make this decision.
The project's wiki states that the project "uses a consensus-based community-driven development model".
In this case, there seems to be a fairly clear consensus among the actual glibc developers that this joke is not appropriate in the project's manual.
Weinberg's application of the patch was based on this consensus.
Stallman, however, has made it clear that there are limits to the extent to which glibc is consensus-based; his response was: "My decision is to keep the joke".
Weinberg stated his refusal to revert the change; Stallman answered: "I stand by my decision to keep the joke".
O'Donell apologized for not contacting Stallman directly about the removal, but also stood by the decision to remove it.
▶ No.911489>>911491 >>911520
He asked:
A large group of developers, serious senior developers, at least 3 project stewards (GNU Developers for the project), are indicating that they do not share your same view on the joke.
Please consider their input and work with me to reach a consensus position.
Weinberg defended his application of the patch:
I don't think I did anything wrong procedurally.
RMS may be the project leader, but he is not a glibc maintainer.
His wishes regarding glibc are perhaps to be given _some_ more weight than those of any other individual, particularly when he is also the author of text under dispute, but we have never, to my knowledge, treated them as mandates.
Stallman was unimpressed, though, and fell back to a pure authority play, saying: "As the head of the GNU Project, I am in charge of what we publish in GNU manuals.
I decide the criteria to decide by, too".
He later added:
I exercise my authority over Glibc very rarely -- and when I have done so, I have talked with the official maintainers.
So rarely that some of you thought that you are entirely autonomous.
But that is not the case.
On this particular question, I made a decision long ago and stated it where all of you could see it.
O'Donell repeated that a discussion was underway and that the maintainers did not intend to revert the patch.
He also asked whether the change violated any GNU policies --- a question that went unanswered as of this writing.
He also stated clearly that the joke would not return in any form until some sort of consensus was reached.
One could argue that the consensus is already there if one looks at the developers who actually work on glibc; it is difficult to find any of them arguing for the joke's return.
The number of people arguing for the joke in general is quite small.
That did not stop Alexandre Oliva, who evidently has a high opinion of Stallman's sense of humor, from reverting the change early on May 7 --- his first glibc change in 2018.
He did not post his change to the mailing list (and only explained it after being asked); his attempt to justify it as a return to consensus did not fly with O'Donell.
This discussion, one suspects, is not done.
Each project has its own governance model.
The "authoritarian leader" model is quite common in this space, with many projects subject to the will of a (hopefully benevolent) dictator who can decide to accept or reject any change.
Sometimes that model works better than others; glibc itself improved its processes and inclusiveness considerably when its single leader was replaced by a more consensus-oriented model.
Usually, though, such leaders are at least active developers in the projects they manage; that is not the case for the GNU projects.
It can be discouraging for a developer to discover that their changes are subject to a veto from on high by somebody who is not otherwise involved with the project's development.
The echoes of this action may thus persist in the glibc community for some time.
▶ No.911491
▶ No.911520
>>911489
>I exercise my authority over Glibc very rarely -- and when I have done so, I have talked with the official maintainers.
>So rarely that some of you thought that you are entirely autonomous.
>But that is not the case.
You don't own nothing, goyim!
▶ No.911530>>911531
Undermine a man's right to exercise authority by cutting him off once he's extended himself at all, and you undermine society as a whole. You teach that you don't own what you don't have in your hands at all times. Property rights? Nice try goy. Bank accounts? Better keep your cash under the bed... but wait, cash is just cotton paper.... now we go back to a barter system. Your wife not literally wrapped around your cock? What wife? She belongs to the community now.
If a man starts something, created it, he has the right to make a fucking joke. This is communist proletariat trash. They wish to cut off the extension of material authority and power... extension... power... material... authority.... extension... cut off.... THEY WANT TO CUT OFF ALL COCKS LIKE THE BASTARD SCUM THEY ARE.
If they come to cut your cock n' balls off, it's time to cut off their heads. Conversation ends there. It now becomes life or death. As it should be.
▶ No.911531
>>911530
**extension of power and authority of the material
▶ No.911532
▶ No.911553>>911616
>>911325 (OP)
>Stallman doing nothing of value
>again
▶ No.911562
>>911332
Full retard or not I support his right to say stupid shit in his own damn program. Fuck the assholes trying to engineer the social dynamics of the open source community in the name of socjus.
▶ No.911582>>912160
>>911340
>We need a new name like "reddit spacing" for these idiots who never put spaces anywhere. Gay-spacing maybe?
/pol/-spacing? I'm not anti-pol, but that's where the d&c took off.
▶ No.911616
>>911553
>Snowflakes doing nothing of value
>Again
▶ No.911618
>(((Weinberg)))
>(((Stallman)))
Linux sure is based!
▶ No.911631>>911634
>>911325 (OP)
I'm glad Stallman is fighting back, its a shame he made such a cuck license though.
▶ No.911634>>911639 >>911657
>>911631
I wish people would just stop nagging about GPL and BSD licenses. They are both good but have different emphasis.
▶ No.911635
>>911425
Bet rms ate all of the arm cheese
▶ No.911639>>911650
>>911634
>They are both good but have different emphasis.
I agree. One respects your freedom, and one enslaves you for your own good.
▶ No.911641
>>911640
Abortion is technology too
▶ No.911650>>911655
>>911639
But that's wrong! The GPL will guarantee the user's freedom. The permissive license merely permits it in some circumstances, there is no guarantee the user will have their freedom with a permissively licensed software.
▶ No.911653
▶ No.911655>>911660 >>911664 >>911668
>>911650
>The GPL will guarantee the user's freedom.
Nice try. You commies always do this.
>We are going to restrict your freedom but its for your own good really you are more free despite the limitations.
▶ No.911657>>911659
>>911634
>They are both good but have different emphasis.
I don't see the Intel Management Engine or the AMD PSP under a GPL license.
▶ No.911659>>911666 >>911668
>>911657
>If other people can do what they want with free code that is a restriction of MY freedom
▶ No.911662>>911663
>>911660
If you cared about cucking you would be writing proprietary software.
>I will only suck THIS MUCH DICK at a time
▶ No.911663>>911665 >>911667 >>912253
>>911662
Using proprietary software at all makes (You) the cuck
▶ No.911664
>>911655
>what?!?!? I can't kill and rape?!?!?!?!???!?!!? I'm, like, so not-free. This communist government and its pesky Constitution is, like, totally restricting my freedom
That's you. That's how dumb you sound.
▶ No.911665>>911670
>>911663
>That's you. That's how dumb you sound.
<He does not know the difference between positive and negative freedom.
You have a right to speak, not be listened to. You have a right to eat, not a right to food. Its really fucking simple 101 tier.
▶ No.911666>>911669 >>911788
>>911659
Yes it is.
You see, allowing the software to be used in proprietary stuff is directly helping the botnet.
Why do you like the botnet, mister?
▶ No.911667
>>911663
I only use BSD software that grants me the most rights of any common license. Use the software written by the cucks.
▶ No.911668>>911672
>>911655
>We are going to restrict your freedom but its for your own good really you are more free despite the limitations.
Listen bud it's not the license that limits what you can do or not it's the laws of your gorverment behind it.
The license is a contract, if the contract said that you agreed to be buttfucked then you agreed to be buttfucked.
If the license says that devs cannot let people get buttfucked but the users can if they want to then it's their choice.
>>911659
>interpreting while committing details
This subject has been discussed to death, the old Redox thread explained this clearly.
>that is a restriction of MY freedom
Not it isn't. Your freedom stays in your personal space of possible things that you want to do, not the space of other people.
▶ No.911669>>911673 >>911676 >>911817
>>911666
You mean that computer that you voluntarily use?
>If I voluntarily give my data to the botnet its the botnets faults
LOL
▶ No.911670>>911672
>>911665
That's all fine and well but it doesn't change the fact that proprietary software means users are not allowed to live in freedom.
▶ No.911672>>911681
>>911668
>Not it isn't. Your freedom stays in your personal space of possible things that you want to do, not the space of other people.
You really read that incorrectly. Its meme arrowed for a reason.
>Listen bud it's not the license that limits what you can do or not it's the laws of your gorverment behind it.
Yeah the license is totally unrelated to how hard the government fucks you.
>>911670
What proprietary software. I am using OpenBSD. Nothing proprietary in it.
▶ No.911673>>911675
>>911669
My computer is my machine but whenever I choose to install proprietary software, I have chosen to forfeit my right to control my machine. The only time I will get my freedom back is the time when I choose to remove that proprietary software.
▶ No.911675>>911682
>>911673
So you voluntarily choose to forfeit control of your machine? LOL. What a retard. I only use OpenBSD so that I have control.
▶ No.911676>>911679 >>911680
>>911669
but sometimes that proprietary software is something that is not voluntary when using a computer. For example, the ME, which is what we were just talking about
▶ No.911679>>911687 >>911696
>>911676
>For example, the ME, which is what we were just talking about
So you are saying, that when you are voluntarily using something, that other parts of it are some how not voluntary?
▶ No.911680>>911696
>>911676
Then don't use it. Right to eat, not right to food.
▶ No.911681
>>911672
>Nothing proprietary in it.
kek
▶ No.911682>>911684 >>911690
>>911675
That's the whole point about proprietary software and freedom - choosing proprietary software inherently means you choose to forfeit this control! I will assume that your OpenBSD system is actually free software - there is no guarantee that your version of a liberally licensed software is actually free because you are supposed to check on a case by case basis of where you get that software from.
▶ No.911684>>911688
>>911682
>Choosing to use something proprietary means you are choosing to use something proprietary
durrrrrrrrr
▶ No.911687
>>911679
Yes, that's completely possible. You can choose to use the computer, but in order to use the computer, there is this certain part that must be used.
▶ No.911688>>911691
>>911684
Who are you quoting?
▶ No.911690
>>911682
Right, Intel x86 is the only CPU that exists.
▶ No.911691>>911695
▶ No.911695
>>911691
That's impossible!
▶ No.911696>>911697
>>911679
>>911680
>j-just don't use a computer!!
▶ No.911697>>911702 >>911703
>>911696
>J-just give me free shit.
▶ No.911702>>911704
>>911697
but the ME isn't a product, mister! Intel could just sell CPUs without it and no normie would ever notice, and the world would be a better place without it.
I would gladly buy new intel CPUs if they were 100% free as in libre.
▶ No.911703>>911705
>>911697
Nobody is saying anything like that. We're moaning that the state of affairs in computing is not to our optimal state. Some of us are willing to pay a premium to buy computers that meet our strict demands of "user control" and its notable lack of "user misfeatures".
▶ No.911704>>911709
>>911702
>I would gladly buy new intel CPUs if they were 100% free as in libre.
Thats nice. You don't get to force intel to remove it though.
▶ No.911705>>911709
>>911703
>We would gladly buy a blue car but they won't sell it to us.
Tough shit. Go make your own car.
▶ No.911709>>911712
>>911704
The only force we have is by paying with our wallet! The
>>911705
That's exactly what we're doing! There are projects right now where we sponsor the production of the hardware that meets our standards. In the meantime, there are already computers for sale (today) that meet our standards.
▶ No.911712>>911717
>>911709
>The only force we have is by paying with our wallet!
Good. We need less force.
>That's exactly what we're doing!
Good, i'm glad you are building things. If its GPL though I won't use it and am against it. GPL restricts the users freedom. I won't user proprietary software, and I won't use GPL, for the same reasons.
▶ No.911717>>911720 >>911721
>>911712
The GPL ensures the users' freedom in every case!
▶ No.911720>>911721 >>911732 >>911820
>>911717
except the freedom of restricting freedom (which isn't a bad thing)
▶ No.911721>>911723
>>911717
>Restrictions are freedom
>>911720
If I publish a binary on my website of have not restricted anyones freedom.
▶ No.911723>>911725
>>911721
don't publish the binary. nobody's forcing you to use other's code as if it was yours
▶ No.911725
>>911723
>don't publish the binary
Right, so you are restricting my freedom then.
>nobody's forcing you to use other's code as if it was yours
I believe in free software. If people want to publish a binary they can.
▶ No.911731>>911735 >>911879
▶ No.911732>>911734
>>911720
The GPL doesn't restrict the user's freedom at all.
▶ No.911734>>911739 >>911813
>>911732
Lets see, here are a bunch of the restrictions it places on you:
- Must include copyright information
- Must include copy of license
- Must license code linked with GPL3 under GPL3
- Agree to not sue a developer if their software kills someone
Just to name a few
▶ No.911735
>>911731
left it there by accident :P sorry
▶ No.911736>>911737
I am a huge faggot and I suck cocks.
▶ No.911739>>911741
>>911734
Protip: the GPL is not a usage license, it places zero restrictions in how a user will use the software.
▶ No.911741
>>911739
>All the restrictions don't count because I feel like it
IT RESPECTS UR FREEDUMB GUYS. IT DOES NOT BAN USING THE SOFTWARE WHILE RIDING A HORSE.
▶ No.911742>>911743
>>kicking up all this dust because you dont agree with a person who created the joke
this whole situation is a joke, this "patch" creates nothing useful
▶ No.911743>>911745
>>911742
Its not about the patch anon. Its about the power dynamics.
▶ No.911744
once again there is no other point to this but to undermine people, why would the person care about line of text that has hardly any meaning beyond interpretation in context of a joke?
▶ No.911745>>911747
>>911743
going to war over joke is ridiculous
▶ No.911746
person should just FUCK OFF back to making IMPROVEMENTS
▶ No.911747>>911748
>>911745
Slippery slopes are real. It starts with jokes.
▶ No.911748>>911749 >>911751
>>911747
contribute or FUCK OFF
▶ No.911749>>911750
>>911748
I won't contribute to GPL.
▶ No.911750>>911751
▶ No.911751>>911752
>>911748
>>911750
>Contribute good code
>Get banned for making a politically incorrect joke on twitter
all that wasted time
▶ No.911752>>911753
>>911751
No time was ever wasted.
▶ No.911753>>911756
▶ No.911756>>911758
▶ No.911788
>>911666
>9/11 Satan
I want this cutie to molest me!
▶ No.911792
>>911767
Old men. Warning. Warning.
▶ No.911813>>911902
>>911734
readniggaread.gif
You do not understand the concept of copyright.
>- Must include copyright information
>- Must include copy of license
Holy shit you need to add proof what the license is.
I guess MIT and BSD doesn't need to show what kind of license it's under or who the copyright older is.
It's not like that if you put no description of the license in your source code it makes it per default proprietary thank to the actual laws.
>- Must license code linked with GPL3 under GPL3
That is false, Linked code with GPLv3 must be COMPATIBLE plus it depends on HOW you link.
It's EXPLICITLY detailed in the FAQ:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLAndPlugins
>- Agree to not sue a developer if their software kills someone
Literally 100% of all licenses do that.
>inb4 but the bsd/mit doesn't do it
But the companies who uses these license makes a second mandatory contract with their product to people that explicitly says that they can't do shit to them.
▶ No.911817>>911902
>>911669
>If I voluntarily give my data to the botnet its the botnets faults
Be normie
Buy android smartphone
Start it
Shows a contract to accept or not
Reads it
Doesn't accept it
Can't use smartphone
Ask another model
Start it
Shows a contract to accept or not
Reads it
Doesn't accept it
Can't use smartphone
Ask another model
etc...
Here's a more realistic scenario:
Be normie
Buy android smartphone
Start it
Shows a contract to accept or not
Doesn't read it and accept it
Ask for mandatory internet connection
Connects it.
Links email to phone to use the Google app store
Data is already being transmitted to CIA niggers
Normie doesn't know
▶ No.911820>>911826 >>911902
>>911720
>except the freedom of restricting freedom (which isn't a bad thing)
Why can't I use this hammer to bash the head of my neighbor ? I wonder why.
▶ No.911826
>>911820
ITT people who know how freedom is defined.
▶ No.911843>>911902 >>912230
>>911660
Commies are cucks, though.
▶ No.911902>>911909
>>911813
>You do not understand the concept of copyright.
You don't understand that a license can expand on this freedom.
>That is false, Linked code with GPLv3 must be COMPATIBLE plus it depends on HOW you link.
Way to be pedantic fuckwit. You think this changes anything. FINE LGPL, and Apache 2.0 are accepted. Not BSD, MIT, or any of the other ones.
>Literally 100% of all licenses do that.
Yeah its really great that you have to give up the right to sue a developer if their code kills you. Thats soooo freedom respecting.
>contract with their product to people that explicitly says that they can't do shit to them.
Great, they can do that. I'm not going to restrict the freedom of everyone using my code saying they can only use it XYZ way.
>>911817
>Doesn't read it and accept it
Oh no people have to be responsible for the things they agree to because they refuse to read a popup! How terrible!
>>911820
Freedom to eat, not right to food, freedom to speak, not right to be listened to.
>>911843
Agreed.
▶ No.911909>>911929 >>912252
>>911902
>Not BSD, MIT, or any of the other ones.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
>Thats soooo freedom respecting.
Stay mad all software do this for obvious reasons.
>Oh no people have to be responsible for the things they agree to because they refuse to read a popup! How terrible!
True but they don't have much of a choice like the other example in the post. Are you going to cherry pic everything that only suits your narrative ?
>Freedom to eat, not right to food, freedom to speak, not right to be listened to.
Your example doesn't make any sense. It doesn't make any sense because we are talking about tools and not food or social interaction.
Software is a tool either you control it or you don't and if you don't it is more than probable that it controls you.
▶ No.911929
>>911909
>Stay mad all software do this for obvious reasons.
Because you want to tie the hands of your users incase you fuck up and ruin their lives. How outraged you are when corporations do this.
>but they don't have much of a choice
No choice! How about, don't use Facebook.
>Software is a tool either you control it or you don't
Which is why I only use BSD, the most freedom respecting common license.
▶ No.911946
I liked how they just agreed in the end.
>based Dr. Stallman again
keks
Also I think abortion is bad "morally" but itself is a good riddance since snowflake genes will be gone for good. (I honestly support trans shit since it also removes them from the genepool)
▶ No.912003
Throw in some holocaust jokes and see if (((stallman))) is consistent.
▶ No.912064>>912084
The Virgin Code-of-Conduct-Abiding BSDrone
VERSUS
The Chad Anti-Safespace Stallmanite
▶ No.912084>>912088 >>912130
>>912064
>>912080
Proprietary software FTW. Writing anything else is cucked.
▶ No.912088>>912130
>>912084
>Proprietary software FTW
It really is. The average consumer doesn't give two shits about open source. They don't know how to read the code anyways, so why should they care? It's a myth that open source is safer because it's "audited". Has anyone ever read through the millions of lines of code that compose most open source software projects? Shit SYSTEMD is almost at 1M loc and wtf does it do?
▶ No.912118
>>911325 (OP)
I like how he started with "I'm removing the joke because it's not useful" and then switched to "I'm removing the joke because it's offensive" when confronted about it.
▶ No.912127>>912147
>>911660
But both are the same.
▶ No.912130>>912251 >>912263
>>912088
>>912084
>Proprietary software
Any code at it's core is a mathematical expression.
Mathematics are just a codification describing reality, as such mathematics formulas are simply "discovered", not "invented" and cannot be proprietary, 2+2=4 was true before life itself appeared on Earth and will still be true long after it's gone. No one "invented" it. That right there is the core pillar of scientific discovery and one of the core pillar of scientific thought. No biggie.
If code = maths, maths ≠ proprietary
->code ≠ proprietary.
Doesn't mean it has to be "open source", developed in a Kollective or that it's discoverer couldn't have a monetizable moral (and not proprietary) right on it but the idea that a code can belong to someone is retarded because of the very nature of what coding is.
There tend to be only one optimal solution to coding x function in y language. Anyone seeking that optimal solution will always tend find toward the same solution.
Because ultimately it's a math problem.
▶ No.912138
>>912080
Linooh
Bright Future Forward
(In Capitalist America, comprising property Tech support Uses You!)
▶ No.912147
▶ No.912156>>912174 >>912323
i'll never understand the desperation for some faggots to do anything to get their name on a submitted patch to a large oss project
Unless this person contributes technically to the project in some way any future proposed submissions they make should be completley ignored, remove the asshole from the mailing list too.
▶ No.912160
>>911582
jew-spacing because the only ones trying to divide us at this point are associated with jews
that or pig-posting
▶ No.912174
>>912156
>you should never contribute to a free software project unless you've already contributed to it lots of times
WTF
▶ No.912230>>912232 >>912246
>>911843
Wasn’t Stirner a literal cuck?
▶ No.912232
>>912230
Yes, and Marx was an abysmal family man.
▶ No.912233>>912248
>Why is “inclusivity” so devastatingly lethal to tech?
>Observe “women in tech”. As Spandrel observes “Women in tech” are women trying to get nerds out of tech. Nerds protest. “We were here first! We built this from scratch!”. Yeah whatever. There’s money to be made, so women want in. Then they saw nerds there, and then they can’t help their instincts. Nerds must go. Women just won’t live close to them; the same way humans don’t like living close to snakes or rats. That getting rid of the nerds would destroy the whole ecosystem is secondary. When tech collapses after women chase the nerds away, women will just migrate to somewhere else built by some other males, as if nothing had happened.
https://blog.jim.com/economics/inclusivity-codes-of-conduct/
▶ No.912239
It's interesting that the patch was sent from a cock.li e-mail alias.
https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-04/msg00595.html
▶ No.912246>>912421
>>912230
No, rather he cucked a rich girl out of her fortune.
▶ No.912248
>>912233
I'm okay with crashing plane with no survivors. Plane is full of snakes since the 90's anyway.
▶ No.912251>>913551
>>912130
Well thats nice and all, but i'm going to keep my source code, and you can fuck off. Mathematical expression or not. Just replace the word proprietary with uhhh "secret" :^)
▶ No.912252>>912254
>>911909
>https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
Retard, not every license is GPL3 compatible on that list. Not even the GPL2 is GPL3 compatible.
▶ No.912253
>>911663
I don't anon, I only use BSD software where I have source access. I only write proprietary software though.
▶ No.912254>>912257 >>912258
>>912252
GPLv2 or later is compatible with GPLv3, GPLv2 only is not.
▶ No.912257>>912282
>>912254
>Please note that GPLv2 is, by itself, not compatible with GPLv3.
Wrong
▶ No.912258
>>912254
"GPLv2 or later" is not a license, it's a kind of copyright notice. You could do the same thing with any selection or criterium of licenses.
▶ No.912263>>913551
>>912130
Invention and property are completely independent concepts. Mathematical expressions might not be owned under current copyright laws, but good luck convincing a judge or a legislator to equate algorithms with mathematical expressions.
▶ No.912282>>912306
>>912257
>not noticing the or later
>being this retarded
pic related, it's you.
▶ No.912306>>912309
>>912282
I am exactly quoting the section on the GPL2 you fuckwit.
>Please note that GPLv2 is, by itself, not compatible with GPLv3. However, most software released under GPLv2 allows you to use the terms of later versions of the GPL as well.
Let me spell that out for you. GPL2 is not compatible with GPL3.
▶ No.912309
>>912306
And if the pro GPL idiot comes back quoting
>However, most software released under GPLv2 allows you to use the terms of later versions of the GPL as well.
read this:
Software being licensed under proprietary, MIT, GPL, and BSD licenses by the author does not mean those licenses are compatible with each other, it just means the software is multi license.
▶ No.912323>>912337
>>912156
Read the article, dipshit. This is supported by long time contributors.
▶ No.912337
>>912323
read my dick in your mouth
▶ No.912421>>912452 >>912465 >>912564
>>912246
property is a spook
▶ No.912452>>912465 >>912564
>>912421
your property yes, my property, no. now get back to work, roach
▶ No.912465>>912564
>>912421
His primary work is literally called "A man and his property".
>>912452
This guy gets it.
▶ No.912502
>>911325 (OP)
I didn't even get the joke at first sight, what a bunch of fags.
▶ No.912506
>>911660
Those are synonyms, dumb faggot.
▶ No.912564
>>912452
>>912465
>>912421
My property is my fetus and i can have it aborted if i please
▶ No.913551
>>912251
>>912263
>but good luck convincing a judge or a legislator to equate algorithms with mathematical expressions.
I don't have to, it's a demonstrable mathematical equation. That's as absolute a truth there ever gonna be. What you cannot is argue against that demonstrable fact without committing serious fallacy. And believe it or not the whole legal system is also about logic and truth, there are breaking points to how much you can twist reality with words.
>Just replace the word proprietary with uhhh "secret" :^)
Well yeah, you could have done that, that's my whole point.
Except that's not what the open source useful idiots did.
See if you have a moral right (instead of proprietary) over programs you produce it means the AUTHOR of the program ultimately decide, for a duration, on how his program is being used (depending that sort of thing historically can go from 8 years to the discoverer lifespan, then it elevates itself unto public domain).
You can therefore license it usage... but you never lose ownership of it (because you don't actually own it, since you can't own it, but since you discovered it you can be it's moral guardian and decide if it's usage suits you or not for a time. That's something that does previously exists in other fields).
That's the type of laws, that were easy to justify to lawmakers and would have left programmers with the upper hand and the industry built around actually talented ones, instead of being treated as construction contractors and semi-skilled laborers.
Instead the useful idiots spun some stupid pseudo-marxist bullshit, based on the same argument (a program is maths, maths aren't proprietary) to go on all codes should be free and developed in common and that, like, money is evil, man... all the shit that always makes every lawmakers call security to have the communist filth removed from the premises.
Guess who won?
As usual when useful idiots are involved the ones signing the checks to their charities = big companies.
Programs are proprietary, you, the author, makes it on a computer owned by the company? It is owned by the company and you can go fuck yourself if the company makes billions out of it, as long as they payed you for fixing the toilets.
And this ladies and gentlemen is everything that is wrong in tech, both "open software" hippies and "proprietary software" suits are against you.
Just like AFK on nearly every subject...