/tech/ - Technology★

because tech hipsters are fucking retarded

because they dont program or really dont care about the free software movement.

These "people" are incapable of reading texts longer than 140 characters. I'd bet she had not even heard of this Stallman villain in the 90s.

>>912223 (OP)

fucking lol

Because they're the same categories, even if they're not the same philosophies.

the other retweets, or comments or whatever they are called, are even funnier

https://twitter.com/sarahmei/status/994010501460865025

Maybe they just don't give a shit about your autistic "movement". Have you thought about that?

>kills babies

>hates freedom

big surprise

>>912223 (OP)

Succinctly explain how having a source openly available to read, modify, and distribute does not match the criteria of "free software".

>>912223 (OP)

Because autists can't learn how to communicate effectively with normalfags, so they completely failed to cockblock Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. We could be hearing about the LinuxBox 720, but you autists had to be spergs.

>>912259

Modification and redistribution are not required for open source. You can read MS-DOS source, but you can't (legally) modify it.

Is this what virtue signalling looks like?

>I'm pro choice

>Not as pro choice as I am hurr hurr

>>912262

What about open source made readily available by the programmer? How is that not "free software"?

>>912268

Pretty much.

>>912269

>I can't read

>>912274

What's this supposed to mean? Anon made a reply to my question referencing MS-DOS source. While a person can look it at, they have to pay Microsoft a substantial fee, so that isn't source readily available to the public. I then asked specifically about open source made readily available by the programmer. You then insult me unnecessarily. If you don't have anything to contribute, then go back to eating out of your bowl of shit.

>>912262

>Modification and redistribution are not required for open source

This is just not true.

The open source definition was adapted from the Debian Free Software Guidelines, which are actually slightly stricter than the FSF's rules.

>>912223 (OP)

>he and his followers pushed out a whole generation of female developers

Where's the proof of that ?

>Why people can't differentiate free software from open source?

Because most devs and users don't care about the legal aspect of both sides. And when I say legal aspect I mean reading and understanding licenses.

The reason why open source is dominating the minds of people it's because it's backed up by Google, Microsoft and other tech giants who meme it with the force of a thousand suns.

>>912259

>Succinctly explain how having a source openly available to read, modify, and distribute does not match the criteria of "free software".

Open source simply isn't copyleft it's on the permissive sides. It's a very small difference but it has huge repercussions.

For example X company makes a product. The product uses a software license under a permissive license (MIT/BSD) the Y product is sold to people but the company does not share the source code thus the people don't really own what they just bought.

Now a small variation of this.

The product uses a software license under a permissive license (MIT/BSD) the product is sold to people.The company does share the source code but the hardware is signed thus the people can't execute a modified version of the software so they still don't really own what they just bought.

You have to transpose Physical to Virtual with the right that you have with them correctly to understand this so I'll make an example with a common object.

X company makes a cupboard, you buy it. Now what can you do with it ?

You can use it normally put dishes in it or other object aka use it as it was intended.

But maybe you want to bring modifications to it.

Maybe add a another shelf, it's not especially a problem you have access to it just use a hammer some nails and another piece of wood plus it is your you don't have any legal restrictions to not make modifications to what you own.

Or maybe you don't want to use it as intended, maybe you want to tor it apart and it's it's part for other purposes and there's nothing stopping you.

Or maybe your child damage it and you need to repair it.

Or maybe you like it very much and you want to make a copy of it, you can of course go see the people who sold it to you but you can also make a copy yourself.

The difference when copying a physical object is that you need the same amount of resources/efforts to do so.

You see all these are possible because you are the legal owner of these and the people who sold it to you know that very well and they do not care what you do with it afterwords. And for them to impose restrictions to what you can do on it would first need a legal coverage of what is not permitted and invasive methods like for example cameras, microphones, and other kind of sensors in the object that you bought.

To finish this we can compare the freedom differences between open source and Free/Libre software.

In Open source we have:

>The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1).

>The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2).

But these two are optional the nature of permissive licenses in open source does not legally guaranties you to have any of these.

In Free/Libre software we have:

>The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).

>The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

>The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2).

>The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

All of these are complementary to each other and are legally covered.

For example Freedom 0 didn't exist before the tivoization case happened. And that Freedom protects all the other ones because there's no point of being able to study/make changes, redistribute copies or distribute copies of your modified versions if it can't be executed on your hardware.

>>912277

>This is just not true.

This is false.

>which are actually slightly stricter than the FSF's rules.

That is incorrect if debian was stricter than the FSF's rules they would be listed in the list of distributions who respects your freedoms see:

https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html

>>912223 (OP)

>http://www.sarahmei.com/blog/

>I'm a Ruby & JavaScript developer based in San Francisco.

What a loss.

>>912279

>This is false.

It isn't:

https://opensource.org/osd

Did you actually not read the definition of open source? That would be embarassing.

>That is incorrect if debian was stricter than the FSF's rules they would be listed in the list of distributions who respects your freedoms see:

>https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html

They're not listed there because only the software in their "main" repository follows their guidelines.

This is clearly explained on https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html which should really have been the first place to check before making your post.

The FSF is so much on board with Debian's guidelines that they imported Debian's packages into directory.fsf.org.

feminist cunts drive me absolutely crazy

It's always feminist CUNTS who work in UX and "outreach" that complain about the people writing the code that runs the world

>>912279

Just because a company uses software that is licensed under a BSD or MIT style and makes a derivative product from it does not prevent people from finding, viewing, and modifying that original software. If a consumer paid for a product, then find out it's available in another form without cost, the consumer feels scammed, but consumers don't produce. They don't care about having the ability to change code or modifying hardware. They just want what works. The only people who would genuinely have a problem with this are companies who paid out for multiple licenses when they have their own in-house development team that could have used the same openly available source in their own internal, proprietary solution that that business requires.

As for signed binaries, they do have legitimate use cases like preventing malware from collecting and disseminating private information; however, this is a lightbulb economy, and I understand how signed binaries can also be abused. Again, consumers don't care about modifying source and hardware, they just want to consume products mindlessly.

>>912283

The FSF is not the sole or original authority on open source or free software.

>>912278

>I will not attend or speak at any conference where he's present.

lol, she's implying she ever gets invited in anywhere with a minimum of relevance

<http://www.sarahmei.com/blog/speaking/

<https://archive.fo/QqAUq

A Ruby (First released 1995) and Javascript (First released 1995) developer didn't start contributing to Free Software in the 90's because of Richard Stallman... What a fucking joke

>>912223 (OP)

that post is generated by a markoff chain. it's not feasibly possible to believe RMS is stopping women from contributing

>>912287

>The FSF is not the sole or original authority on open source or free software.

Does that have any bearing on the claim that modification and redistribution are required for open source?

>>912293

If you are going by the FSF's definition of open source, then yes it does have an impact, just like all authorities have their own impression on the audience. If someone can't deduce or infer how the phrase open source inherently allows for modification and redistribution, that person has more problems that software.

>>912302

I haven't even said anything about the FSF's definition of open source so far - I don't think they have a formal one in the first place.

I'm going by the OSI's definition of open source, which does roughly align with the FSF's description of it.

I'm confused. What's your opinion about all this?

>>912280

The last thing RMS wants is more women in (((open source))).

>>912303

If the programmer intentionally releases source code for others to read, then it's plainly and painfully obvious that the source can be modified and redistributed without problems. As for monetary exchange, if the guy wanted money out of it in the first place, he should have sold licenses to use the software. Bad luck boy-o.

>>912317

>the source can be modified and redistributed without problems

That's illegal without permission. It's not implicit. If there's no license on the software and no other kind of notice that says you're allowed to do it you can be sued.

>>912281

>a woman webdev

who would of guessed!

>>912283

>Did you actually not read the definition of open source? That would be embarassing.

You are just confirming that they are even more poozed. These SUGGESTIONS have changed since the last time I've read them and not in a positive way.

>1. Free Redistribution

This rules only states that there's not restriction about monetary retribution.

>2. Source Code

>The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form.

That's a good thing

>for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost

Vague and will be abused.

>3. Derived Works

Again good

>4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code

This is bloat. It complexify for no reason the whole principal and it will be abused.

>5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups

Bloat.

>6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

Bloat.

>7. Distribution of License

Badly worded and bloat.

>8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product

Badly worded and bloat.

>9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software

Badly worded but a nice gesture against DRM.

>10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral

Bloat.

This is not a license it's a sets of Suggestion to what is a "open source" software.

If you read the list of license here:

https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical

A lot of them shouldn't be in there. They interpreted things the way they wanted.

>>912287

>Just because a company uses software that is licensed under a BSD or MIT style and makes a derivative product from it does not prevent people from finding, viewing, and modifying that original software.

This is true the license does not make them close the source to the their customers but the license does not make them distribute the source code to their customers either.

>If a consumer paid for a product, then find out it's available in another form without cost, the consumer feels scammed,

So when I go to a flee market and I see a product that was sold 1K for only 10$ I'm being scammed ?

When china makes a clone of a product for 10 times less than what I would buy in the US I feel scammed by the US seller ?

What about the services that comes along with the product if there's any does the buyers feel scammed ?

>but consumers don't produce.

You can thanks the marketing school for putting such erroneous idea in your brain.

Consumers produce X when they buy a hammer.

Consumers produce steel when they buy iron.

Consumers produce data when they use a PC.

When there's a tool there's ultimately a production of something.

>They don't care about having the ability to change code or modifying hardware.

Then we should spot the assembly chains right now all tools are worthless thanks to your analogy.

>They just want what works

The only reason for that is because some of them only consider computers as magic, some of them don't have time, some of them are forced to use them some of them consider themselves too dumb to be able to comprehend a computer but they still use it and companies take that to their advantage and they abuse these people.

That's why like a car a license should be mandatory for using a computer and browsing the internet this should all be learned in school.

>The only people who would genuinely have a problem with this are companies who paid out for multiple licenses when they have their own in-house development team that could have used the same openly available source in their own internal, proprietary solution that that business requires.

And people who care about the legality of what they are doing.

See for example the guy who went to jail because he made recycled computers with a valid windows license.

How many people went to jail because they reverse engineered something they bought.

>As for signed binaries, they do have legitimate use cases like preventing malware from collecting and disseminating private information

I agree but in that case you let the key to the users in paper format when sold.

>Again, consumers don't care about modifying source and hardware, they just want to consume products mindlessly.

You assume that 100% of consumers do it mindlessly witch isn't true and also it is not a reason for not letting people have normal/legal rights for what they buy.

>>912327

Of course it's not a fucking license. Neither is the free software definition. Why would it be a license?

The Open Watcom license is the only license I know that's approved by the OSI and rejected by the FSF, and I know only one piece of software that uses it. It's the only example I ever see brought up. Do you know any others? Even the two Microsoft licenses on the OSI's list are considered to be free software licenses by the FSF.

>>912280

This is attention seeking. Pure and simple. She knows that RMS was never associated with or involved in "Open Source". He has explicitly stated that he does not support Open Source, only Free Software. The best we can do is ignore pointless posts like hers and calmly explain the differences of Free Software and OSS to people unfamiliar with the matter.

don't go to her twitter, you will get canceraids. she is only capable of responding with lame unfunny forced meme gifs.

GAS

>>912315

>The last thing RMS wants is more women in (((open source))).

Since RMS is against open source I think that more womans and pajeet in it would only accelerate it's destruction.

RMS only cares about the computer freedom of people in general he doesn't care about the sex you have. Otherwise you would see silly and non important notes in the GPL like:

>No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups

>>912338

they're going to push for code's of conduct in all of the GPL projects. stallman needs moral support, he must not cave to the demons

>tfw you have a vagoo and aspire to be a programmer but you quit because "Richard Stallman"

>>912236

I was not prepared for that level of normalfaggotry.

>>912330

>, and I know only one piece of software that uses it

I know a few hardware microcontrolers and Virtual machines who uses it and it makes my work a hellhole until I can wright something to replace them.

>Even the two Microsoft licenses on the OSI's list are considered to be free software licenses by the FSF.

https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:MsPL

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ms-rl

>and we urge you not to use the Ms-RL for this reason.

Don't you know how EEE works ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish

>Do you know any others?

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

Listen the problem is that you are fixated by who decides who is free or open source.It is good to read why they are free or open source from their perspective but you have to read the licenses to began yourself to understand the words behind each one of them. The evolution of the GPL is the greatest example of a free license that evolved to use legal wording correctly to be a viable license in court worldwide.

You can also read the EULA of MS and Google to help you understand the fundamentals of rights that you have or not.

>>912341

>they're going to push for code's of conduct in all of the GPL projects.

They already have but that's a human/community problem that RMS isn't concerned about.

Ultimately these communities will die because of there violence (except if they are backed up by big corps) not without suffering unfortunately and that's worth avoiding.

>stallman needs moral support

>he must not cave to the demons

I agree.

>>912259

Free software may discriminate people unlike open source software. Like that SJW license that doesn't grant white males any rights.

Also free software licenses must allow licensees to keep their modifications private. Open source licenses may force you to make your modifications public (see Open Watcom license).

Also you can make open source cuckware for a device that respects the Open Source Definition, yet you can use digital signature verification to fuck anyone over (see TiVoization). With free software, if only an "approved" 3rd party can update the software but the user can't, that makes the software non-free (see freedom 0).

>>912262

>Modification and redistribution are not required for open source.

Faggots like you should be gassed.

>>912344

>tfw you have a vagoo

>she

>>912363

How can you not modify the source of something that isn't open source? That makes no sense. You seem to be confusing the social construct that is law with the ability to do something.

>>912363

Is this a markov bot ?

I can't fault the pure point of "Stallman is a weird disgusting fat man and I don't want anything to do with him, and that kept me away from FS/OSS for many years". But I can't take it fairly when it's all wrapped up in feminism and sardonic brown women and abrasive trannies and gay rainbows.

>>912369

wouldn't have been a problem if he was a chad

this is fat shaming.

>>912370

Note >>912290 - Bullshit on any of it. She didn't write code in 90's, full stop.

>>912369

>>912371

>wouldn't have been a problem if he was a chad

RMS was a chad back in the 70s/80s he had multiple girlfriends.

she hates linus too.

so she's a "software engineer" who exclusively uses windows 10 and visual studio.

>>912375

this actually jives perfectly well with the current leftist liberal corporate loving faggot politics. free software = nazi, come use your windows 10 botnet or proprietary ifaggot at starbucks goy while your planning your next protest against capatalism on your $900 proprietary iphone.

>>912371

Chads get it harder from my view. Stallman is only left alone because he's a fat unprofessional slob that nobody expects much from.

>>912375

This woman has 42,000 followers.

>>912376

Exactly, corps will love it if the GPL starts to carry a social cost because of these cunts and faggots.

JACKPOT!!!

I found her Amazon profile. Her last reviewed item?

A book called "How Gamergate (Nearly) Destroyed My Life"

>In tech? Or in America? Read this.

>A fascinating first-person chronicle of a ground-zero event -- GamerGate, a movement created solely to harass white women & people of color in tech and gaming -- that led directly to our current white supremacist/facist problem. >Important read for anyone interested in how all this mess got started and maybe what we can do to fix it.

>https://www.amazon.com/gp/profile/amzn1.account.AEWCRVKOZSOPRMOCFU2HPTXRKUDA/143-0872956-2627258

>>912381

seems good to me actually. let all the sjw's flock to proprietary software and leave GPL the fuck alone, but they won't do that. They'll continually pound on GPL while still using and supporting proprietary until they've destroyed GPL.

>>912279

The main reason open sores is more prevalent than free software is because open sores is synonymous with "code I can use for free" (MIT, BSD-style, Apache, etc.).

Free software is strongly associated with copyleft (e.g. GPL), so companies and businesses are averse to it. Also businesses are too retarded to read licenses; they think free software means GPL (i.e. that only copyleft counts), and that GPL code makes proprietary software GPL and forces you to release your code publicly, when it only makes it infringing. you still have to right things though. However, it's actually no different from adding any unlicensed code under copyright.

TL;DR, open sores is more popular because mass retardation and misinformation.

>>912383

But they're not "leaving it alone". What they can't take over they try to burn to the ground.

>>912382

report it to amazon as a fake reviewer. amazon just banned 100,000 accounts shoahing fake/paid reviewers. it spawned it's own hashtag #amazonclosed.

>>912384

I just noticed the checkmark, why? it's a fucking nobody. Oh right it spews rightthink so twitter verified it.

fag vols bumplocked the thread

i made a new one on /cow/

>>>/cow/440947

>>912405

Why the fuck would they do that?

I encourage looking into her work but ultimately what she's done is irrelevant to her being a blue checked cunt on team poz.

She probably earns x10 more money than me

>>912408

They're cucks. Any discussion which threatens their dogmas must be censored like in all their gay spaces.

Am I retarded or is the thread gone from the catalog? Both?

>>912459

I still see it.

>>912460

I messed up ctrl-fing.

Btw, all threads discussing SJWs bullying rms and trying to usurp glibc have been bumplocked for some (((reason))).

>>912461

http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Richard_Stallman

That website is gold it reports the fun part of RMS.

>>912367

>How can you not modify the source of something that isn't open source?

Because you need the right to modify the source. If you have it, you can. If it's only source-available, you can't.

You can't legally modify source-available software. The moment you publish your modifications, they're liable to getting taken down. No one wants to deal with legal shit, so this severely limits the usability of your stuff.

>>912471

All I'm getting from this is that Stallman did nothing wrong.

>>912223 (OP)

>Why people can't differentiate free software from open source?

I'm going to ignore >her and try to answer the question, because until two or so years ago I wasn't aware of the difference and thought it was just some autistic "we were first, reeeeee" sperging.

Nine out of ten times Open Source and Free Software are for exactly the same, so it is easy to think that they are always the same. So what about that one time? When Stallman explained the issue of TiVo was when it clicked for me. You can watch Linus's response:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU

Basically, he doesn't care as long as he gets what he wants. The fact that a loophole in the GPLv2 is being used to screw users over is of no concern to him as long as he can get back the changes they made to Linux. Open Source is about what is good for the developer, the user is of no concern. By contrast, Free Software is about the user's freedom, so TiVoization is not OK. This was the tipping point that made me side with Free Software over Open Source.

>>912558

>You can't legally modify source-available software. The moment you publish your modifications, they're liable to getting taken down.

What's going to stop you in you're anonymous?

>>912764

Maybe I'm reaching, but that makes sense with the fact that these people whose entire identity is "I'm a developer, I write code, code coding code." care only about OSS. Or more probably it's just the more accessible position, and the position of their corporate hive.

>>912804

You might be on to something here. A sort of ivory tower: as long as I get the freedom I want it's fine, the users are just plebs.

>>912979

It's easy to be tribal about this and assume your the only one who isn't selfish or brainwashed.

As a programmer I like permissive licenses for my libraries because they give proprietary software the ability to use it, and they have an incentive to contribute back. This ultimately benefits the end user because there is more free software available.

It's a different moral stance. If you think of proprietary software like murder, then you wouldn't want to help murderers. If you think of proprietary software like pollution, you would want to help people do what they want to do with the minimum amount of pollution, even if that meant working with companies that pollute.