/tech/ - Tech

Technology.

catalog
Mode: Reply
Name
E-mail
Subject
Message

Max message length: 8192

Files

Max file size: 80.00 MB

Max files: 5

Password

(used to delete files and postings)

Misc

Remember to follow the rules


(53.33 KB 340x313 1602646040132.png)
MAOSS: Militant Anarchist Open Source Society Comrade 10/15/2020 (Thu) 23:26:14 No. 5488
/g/ had a good idea for once: We need a third option to the dichotomy between the fascist commie NIH philosophy of the FSF and the boot-licking brown-nosing philosophy of the OSI. >OSI: in an ideal world, all software should be libre, but good software is more important than libre software, so when proprietary software is better than libre software, it should be able to cannibalize the libre software to make itself even better >FSF: libre software is more important than good software, and therefore libre software is ALWAYS better than proprietary alternatives, no matter how many features are missing, and anyone who uses proprietary software should be harassed until they change their mind, and libre software should never promote proprietary software, not even for interoperability What's the commonality that necessitates this dichotomy? It's the fact that both the OSI and the FSF respect laws around proprietary software. >OSI: those laws are kind of unethical, but it's okay if you want to license under them and steal our shit, your work is better after all >FSF: those laws are unethical, so if you're going to license under them, then the only way to simultaneously avoid breaking them and retain user freedoms is to not use your software or even acknowledge its existence I present the MAOSS. An idea for a gang of criminal e-thugs who use violence to force proprietary licensors to forfeit their IPs against their will so that users don't have to choose between software that works and software that respects their freedoms. >oh, you're going to license your work under a proprietary license? *rips terms of service in half* >*decompiles your work, neuters it of anti-features, and redistributes the libretized version as a component of other freedom-respecting libre work without your permission* >oh what's that, you're gonna sue us? lol *brings flamethrower to court* >*casually murders major proprietary software vendors in cold blood and burgles their laptops*
(82.28 KB 500x566 StirnerGNU.png)
>>5488 Still based.
>>5488 I like this idea. How do I sign up?
Maybe educate yourself on what the FSF is before you spread lies about it being "fascist" or obsessed with NIH.
>>5492 OP just copied and pasted this post from 4chan's /g/ yesterday, I doubt OP really thinks that the FSF is "fascist commie."
>>5488 i know this is a /g/ copypasta but its actually based
The absolute state of retards.
>>5488 Childish understanding of the OSI, the FSF, and anarchism.
why are stirneroids always dumbfuck memers
Why is the problem that we don't have access to the code which is privately owned? Isn't it rather that 3-5 of the world's largest corporations are those private owners? -- that they suck up nearly all wealth created by all code, even the code created by FSF/OSI enthusiasts? I'm so tired of the unreflective libertarianism of both FSF and OSI. Folks need to stop fetishizing freedom of information for its own sake. Freedom of people from their exploitation by capital is more important than whether you get to use a better closed-source pdf editor or whatever tf. More Marx, less Musk please
>>5514 It's not the problem. The problem is that today you are almost certainly forced by circumstance to run proprietary software, which means giving up control over your computing. Free Software is not required to make source code publicly available, only to provide it to the user of said software. The source code is provided to ensure that the user has control over their computing, that they don't have to surrender their computer to whoever owns that piece of software.
>>5517 Thanks for clarifying, but still, I don't quite understand why the problem is how I'm "forced by circumstance to run proprietary software", rather than that I'm forced by circumstance to provide free labor to Google, Amazon, and Big Tech. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big FOSS advocate and user, but I'm far more worried about the proletarianization of the world by new forms of cybernetic exploitation than I am about freedom of information or software per se.
(261.42 KB 1048x1024 smug_gnu.png)
Reminder to all anons in here: license your stuff under the AGPL or the SSPL so that Porky can't use it for his clouds and walled gardens. Disregard Stirnerites and radlibs peddling unproven tactics, uphold Marxist-Stallmanist thought.
>>5518 I don't think it is *the* problem, but it is a problem nevertheless. What do you mean by the "free labour" that you give to Big Tech? Like this? http://wagesforfacebook.com/
>>5520 Yes, AGPL is Google-repellant
>>5519 >so that Porky can't use it for his clouds and walled gardens. Ohnooooooo Porky promised he wouldn't secretly use your code, what will he do????
>>5524 I think your retarded satire is pretty oudated, the smart enough big corps like Google, Microsoft, AMD... are all trying to appeal to the open source crowd (while rejecting actual free software, of fucking course).
>>5488 FSF is mostly fine, SV keeps neutering the licenses - I think it loses in the message it chooses to spread of some liberal free speech thing when the core of free software is that work - as Marx points out - is social and wage labour etc gets in the way of that until it becomes alien to the worker. THe point of FSF (and RMS at least gets this though markets it wrong) is to build a community of hackers working on useful stuff that they love - ie socially useful labor (communism)
>>5525 its free code auditing lol
>>5527 Does anyone actually spend their free time reading random code on the net?
>>5528 yea tons lol though some of the culture has shifted to sec researchers trying to make a name for themselves
>>5527 Yeah, exactly. >>5528 Are you seriously asking that?
>>5531 >>5529 I'm seriously asking because there seems to be a myth that programmers read source code on its own (i.e., not as part of modifying it or doing code review for patches) but in practice nobody actually seems to do it. As far as I know, most security issues are found by automated means (fuzzing, static analysis, etc.) done by corporate entities and not by eager amateurs. Maybe it's different with black hats but corporations usually don't benefit from that. Do you have any proof that people are actually doing free code audits in their free time or do you just feel that it is plausible that they do?
>>5525 GPL violations still happen. Part of the reason corporations release source code is marketing, imbeciles eat up "open source" bullshit even when the software is actually proprietary (see the case of Visual Studio Code). But more importantly it is to let other corporations work on their software. Outside of the GNU sphere of influence, most contributions are actually coming from people who are paid to do it.

Delete
Report

no cookies?