Power, Memory and Schematics


OT reply on FSF stuff
You dont have to be a FSF member to make a reasoned argument.
The FSF isnt only claiming that open source is a meaningless definition, it has no provision....
Claiming so doesn't make it reality. reality is "open source software" licenses are practical identical as the fsf ones so the same freedoms are encoded.

And yes, the FSF provides a license, and no, it is not fighting for control and supremacy. You would know this if you read what i linked
Yes i read the fsf propaganda/position , i know them for years. Therefore i'm very careful in accepting their reality representation. They have an agenda and are willing to misrepresent the facts in their favour.

freeware is a well defined term, meaning gratis software. I am unaware of RMS stating free software is a worse terminology than open source. [citation needed]
rms stated that choosing "free software" was maybe a mistake... he would have chosen now libre software.

open source however has no requirements for freedoms 0-3, whereas free software does. It isn't the same thing. In languages other than English there is no need to specify, but anyone who speaks it will be aware that the duality does not provide certainty.
Claiming so doesn't make it reality. Open source software is as well defined as the stuff the fsf is propagandizing, with the advantage that open source misses the freeware ambiguity and is propagandized in non polarizing way.

where in other languages free software always means free as in freedom, for open source it is consistent with the exact same freedom 1 as in English. Which, alone, again, isn't free software (0-3). In some it is even (directly translated) open source code. No more, no less. How could it be spelled out any clearer?
Open source (0) is no more a guarantee of free software, than shareware is a guarantee for anything more than it is sharable.
"Open source software" is well defined and less ambigious than "free software". "Open (source)" alone while with ambiguity (see the current open pyra confusion), it indicates the important aspect unlike "free" which mostly and firstly fiancially associated.

notice how quickly "open core" fell out of fashion? It is because those people were the bad guys, and they can just say "open source" and "<3 Linux" instead. Everyone gets along there magically, but who is it that all of a sudden squirm at the sight of GPLv3? Users? No, its the same people that take it away when they have the chance. It is the same people that fought cahoots and rails over adopting Linux (GPLv2).
The gpl was a failure as the fsf insisted on clauses they couldn't bring everyone behind. the fsf hoped that they could enforce gplv3 on everyone, despite the license compatibilty. This failed the gplv2 is still more used than the gplv3. Even some projects downgraded to gplv2 again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License_compatibility
is really the decider in terminology. rolleyes.jpeg2000
InfoWorld - the newsweekly for microcomputer users.

You would think that maybe back in 83, making the distinction was a bit unclear to all but only the hardest of hackers, when you haven't gotten the idea even now in 2016.

Suggesting a foundation made in 1998 saved the FOSS (a word from 98) ecosystem, and saying without it Linux wouldn't exist, which btw is from 1991, and saying 'the FOSS ecosystem' without mention of GPL, which is from 1983, isn't very factual, but it is satire. It's not so much that you aren't knowledgable or joined the game late, its more that you invent arguments in defense of a position. Otherwise welcome aboard.
i'm well aware of the history thanks, i was around.

here is a quote from Linus Thorvalds, the original creator of the operating system most of us use:

"I really think the license has been one of the defining factors in the success of Linux because it enforced that you have to give back, which meant that the fragmentation has never been something that has been viable from a technical standpoint."

Lets revisit your claim that it is the FSF that is fighting Free software as the GNU foundation it isn't.
Seems linus is in on it, and i quote: "
"Over the years, I've become convinced that the BSD license is great for code you don't care about,"

Linus also stated that the gplv3 stood against everything he liked in the gplv2. he also stated that potentially he would use now the bsd license. Also, Linus called the fsf liars and immoral, he doesn't want to work with them anymore as the gplv3 PROCESS was so painful.

Also he warned a balkanization of the community by the gplv3, exactly what happened. The copyleft ecosystem is fragmented and in decline.

, the FSF is from 1985, the GPL foundation is from 83.

You mean the license which SUN thinks is good for business? The SUN that isn't in business.
CDDL is a weak copyelft license, incompatible with the strong GPL, atleast you could argue it, and it hasn't been tested in court.
Not only is CDDL irrelevant, ZFS is too. Lets cite linus

"Userspace filesystem? The problem is right there. Always has been. People who think that userspace filesystems are realistic for anything but toys are just misguided."

ZFS on linux is going to be just dandy now that you don't have to run it in fuse. Totally everyone I know will use it as their main filesystem. All the distros were just waiting for canonical to show the way. Year of solaris on the (linux) desktop.

Look up what FUD means.
You claim FUD, and then quote with something you made up in its entirety.
the fsf spread the FUD that the gpl and cddl are incompatible, where even gplv3 COAUTHOR eben moglen disagreed with them.

if you think the GNU/GPL ecosystem is small, you are either delusional or mistaken. The paraimaginary effects seem to have taken hold of your arguments.
Gnu losses subprojects all the time. Gnu nano, gnu tls, libreboot, gnome... the gpl ecosystem is shrinking since 2007, the gpl v3 was an enormous arrogant mistake.
 
Last edited:
Let's just skip what each camp tries to say they are about and the other isn't, and go to their true roots as they pertain to software in the modern English speaking world, as that is what really matters to the uninitiated (yes, you need to use your brain for this one), the names: free(dom) software vs. open source software.

"Free" is a word that really sucks due to multiple meanings. If you know they mean freedom, you can kinda figure out what it is about, which sounds good initially until people understand that there is responsibility that comes with freedom, and the potential confusion about what this freedom is and who or what has it. For those that think free software means freeware there won't be much benefit other than a perception of possibly lower cost. "Libre" is the much better choice imo, and I only speak English.

"Open source" is much more clear, but also much more limited. At the basic level I am discussing here, it means that the source is available for anyone to see.

The terminology shows where they started and what their focus was/is. We could argue about which definition is correct and which one is better, although that doesn't help anything. By working together and helping each other the chances of actually getting shit done is much more likely, possibly changing how things are and making both groups happy. Then both sides can fight and not hinder themselves.
 
isn't it the case in any religion, that, the closer you are to agreeing with each other the more likely you are to create a denominational schism with your (small) differences?

maybe we can call it freedom source.
 
Let's just skip what each camp tries to say they are about and the other isn't, and go to their true roots as they pertain to software in the modern English speaking world, as that is what really matters to the uninitiated (yes, you need to use your brain for this one), the names: free(dom) software vs. open source software.

"Free" is a word that really sucks due to multiple meanings. If you know they mean freedom, you can kinda figure out what it is about, which sounds good initially until people understand that there is responsibility that comes with freedom, and the potential confusion about what this freedom is and who or what has it. For those that think free software means freeware there won't be much benefit other than a perception of possibly lower cost. "Libre" is the much better choice imo, and I only speak English.

"Open source" is much more clear, but also much more limited. At the basic level I am discussing here, it means that the source is available for anyone to see.

The terminology shows where they started and what their focus was/is. We could argue about which definition is correct and which one is better, although that doesn't help anything. By working together and helping each other the chances of actually getting shit done is much more likely, possibly changing how things are and making both groups happy. Then both sides can fight and not hinder themselves.
I'm fully on your side, they both should work together. One line of compromise, giving credit to both and being more clear about the meaning, could be the use of "Free and open source (software)" (FOSS). Sadly, die-hard FSF proponents (like comradekingu, it seems) continue the terminology war against "open source software" and also FOSS (the compromise), harming the whole ecosystem.
isn't it the case in any religion, that, the closer you are to agreeing with each other the more likely you are to create a denominational schism with your (small) differences?
Yes, it is not explainable to outside people by the discussed minor content...as in its core is about power and control and credit. Stallman wanted the credit for GNU and FSF when Linux and OSS got it in the 2000s from the mainstream.

maybe we can call it freedom source.
haha... yes lets call it freedom source ;)
 
It suddenly came to my attention what kind of cataclysm would happen if we started discussing licenses for the keyboard layout... ;p
 
It suddenly came to my attention what kind of cataclysm would happen if we started discussing licenses for the keyboard layout... ;p
You mentioning it is most likely the start...
 
I'm fully on your side, they both should work together. One line of compromise, giving credit to both and being more clear about the meaning, could be the use of "Free and open source (software)" (FOSS). Sadly, die-hard FSF proponents (like comradekingu, it seems) continue the terminology war against "open source software" and also FOSS (the compromise), harming the whole ecosystem.
The FSF is a bit too extreme for me (mostly due to how uncompromising they are with things, and that can be more harmful than building up to things slowly). I like what they are trying to do, and agree with some things. They aren't the only people passing for free/libre software, thought. I won't try to justify ck's position since I don't fully know or understand it. One area that I do sorta agree with all of them is when it comes to using "FOSS" or "FLOSS" as the label of choice, since that makes them seem to outsiders as the same thing. That may not be a real problem, and it could be fixed down the road, or it could hold those backing both philosophies back (I don't have time to go off on a tangent about this and provide examples, but humans are typically lazy).

I meant they could join efforts in educating people and with practical efforts, literally working together to change things. Pointing out that OSS paves the way to wider acceptance of libre software, and will be better for freedom than closed source software seems better for both. Saying the libre/free crowd is a bunch of crazy cultists, our that OSS people don't go far enough our really care about freedom might win some people over, but it also scares other people away and doesn't address things that the average user cares about or even understands. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying don't fight, only to fight the right thing at the right time.

My personal feelings are a bit difficult to explain, but in action it results in preference for libre software if available, then open source, then proprietary stuff that I feel is exceptional and not destructive, and being as vocal as I can about software and companies that try to take advantage of their users/customers (send me a pm asking how I feel about Google for some fun). With those I speak out against I also try to direct people to alternatives, and depending on the people and the situation I may recommend paying software, which is also something I will do myself. Not surprisingly, most people don't care and they will just use what is popular and what they know, willing to pay others to turn them into a product.

If licensing related to the keyboard really matters, anyone can use anything I suggested for anything they want, to do anything they want. The same for my ideas that were adapted in some way, or that inspired things others did. If you want to mention me, that is cool, just make sure to mention those that did all the real work.

Yay, keyboard discussions!
 
So i guess i am taking the bait of someone who doesnt know the difference between GPL ecosystem and the FSF. Since this is the designated hidingplace for rants:
Open source alone is near worthless,

it is just one of the freedoms that together form the establishment of
which the implication of it is based, free software.

Free software was, by its pioneers, given away, in the sense that it is shared.
Like copying is not theft. This is done through retaining control, but sharing in freedoms with others.

The freedom to use, study, modify, and return those modifications to their original form.

It is no accident that egalitarian systems based on these functions have no problems being gratis.

My choice of words hints at it being predominantly gratis, you accept a idea of freedom that is free of cost.

That is inversely true. It would not be free software were it non-commercial.

Of open source, this is only implied, and of free software, it is an implication. Another quirky but essential difference.

Free software is only implicated to be free as in freedom, not cost.

Closed source software otoh. the power to be costly only, and will stop at nothing to do so.

It can mandate that you only use it in ways that answers to no governing terms of freedom.

What is a world that is corrupt enough to invent closed source software, is also functional without it.

So much so, that it would not work without it. So free software keeps things honest.

It is diametrically opposite in all but one way.

Where we are going with this is copyleft. Of the strong variety. Because mandating giving back is the understanding

you can base the spread of freedom on. And that is how it spreads.

Ideas that are intrinsic should not be controlled. Systems are in place to award original thought, not wipe it out and disallow it.


So if open source alone is near worthless, but infinitely valuable where closed source warrants none. What is then closed source?

Closed source is not valuable. It can only give you a value in return for time.
The reason it does that is to have control of itself. At the cost of controlling itself, it can also control you.
If your time is invaluable, offer it to the hands of others, at their peril, without any reward in return.
I imply here that using free software is rewarding, and that slavery is not out of question.

The idea that software defined software, or software, can be controlled, is an intrinsic idea.
Value can be created, yes, but is it distributed evenly, no. If you accept the idea that this value is power, then you see why it is a failed system.
It is a failed system because the systems it create, are only stagnant to the point of stability, and worsening, to the point of not retaining that stability.
Fundamentally both parties can create value, and a symbiotic relationship relationship, but it is one based on governing you, and governing the revenue of
the governing party as a safety. Primitively and fundamentally, not a functional form of government. It is not a fail but a forever backwards pointing way of going there, nowhere, and anywhere but onward.

So where does slavery start and voluntary exchange stop?

At the foundation. Closed source is relinquishing those freedoms.

If that is not important to you, then open source is your thing.

Join the ranks of entities which things taking those powers away from users totally, with closed source
or in part, with open source.

Because that is what actually happens.

Maybe your freedom, the power over you, but other peoples freedom, the ability to have freedom over you, is your thing.
Take your liberty, but do not take mine, that is my freedom.

And to the point of serving a superior motive, at the cost of convenience, i would still be inclined to take it.
So if I am attacked for that, who is tarnishing with the brush that paints, broadly, speaking, of course about FUD, calling the kettle no blacker, than that which can be none blacker than thou, thee who-mmm goes to fail.

With national laws that make sense, closed source meets its end, because it allows for corruption.
Corruption isnt something that someone decides to do, that is a foundation which to this end is all important and irrelevant, corruption in its ways is something that seeps in, and takes over.
The ability to shift power exists so much as its potential. To allow that to extend beyond a personal boundary, in the interest of individualism, is to not let people decide for themselves what evils they want from others.

When it takes over the foundation of our civilization, there are people who will want to have a say about it.

The line of thinking that free software, alone, is going to end these structures, is easily monetized, without any value added, one must add.

The ideas that these structures are intrinsically adverse to the spread of ideas, to the creation of value, is flawed.
Much like the spread of almost-free-software in the sense that it is non-commercial.

These make the same island type power structures. I can't for the life of me understand why businesses, the act of selling value in this case by proxy rather than working on the project itself, managing to invest value into the project it is providing, does not outweigh selling it for bad reasons.

If you think something is sold for a bad reason, sell it cheaper for a better reason. This isn't about the software itself, since these are distributable to at least one hop, bar none (?), but about including them with other works.

In an artistic sense i understand that, but who would hold that against someone, then you value their opinion.
When we allow fair use for parody. That is the copyright system, in which it is released, predominantly, and effectively in other cases.
I think the idea that you can take power away from someone to replicate, indefinitely instead of for a period of time, is a agreed upon evil of the patent system. But this does it without ever bringing the value of all the effort put into the descriptive workings into the hands of everyone at even this rate. It does it anyhow btw, because the provisions for copyright do also ends, at which point it does enter the commons.

So no, non-commercial is not as bad as closed source, because no power benefits from its spread, and it will eventually become fully free.
Closed means risk of loss at a point where you cannot safeguard it yourself. Taking that away is not how to gain my trust. Knowing that it does happen catastrophically, and is a course for fail over time, does not sound welcoming respectively for tools i use, and culture i cherish.

Wealth to the powers to be, powerless to control individuals, to whom all value belongs.

I do not put a value on nature more so than i put a value on freedom. I pay for people to preserve its interests, which i find colludes with mine.
I find systems that take into account personal interest alone, wanting. In a do not want fashion.
I may edit this.
 
I've always wondered why no one has suggested to call it FreeSource? Or maybe there is no satisfying the "FreeSoftware vs OpenSource" debate when it comes to names.
 
It is about much more than the source code, so free source would be totally inaccurate. Also, philosophically they come from very different places, so it is kinda pointless to try to combine them except as different from typical proprietary/closed source software. That is what I was getting at before, work together to overthrow the establishment, but continue working on doing what each camp feels is right. I don't see how you can take things further with open source without heading down the libre/free road (unless you are content to stay with variations of the same thing, thus not really progressing any further).

There are countless entries in the Open Source vs. Free Software debate, but the problem will always be that individuals will feel different things are important.
 
let's call it freedom source!
standards.png
http://xkcd.com/927/
 
It wouldn't be inaccurate, it would be insufficient, kinda like open source.

Luckily it isn't competing for meaning, nor in practice, because predominantly open source is also free software.

You can however have open source that is non-commercial, with any limitation on use, non-distributable and non-compilable.

I would argue that putting a NDA on it makes it 'source available' or some-such. But 'source available' goes all the way back up the other way. With NDAs I don't know if you have to agree to terms first for sharing or to be bound to not contribute to similar software, but anway.

You get to see the source, and maybe use snippets of code under copyright fair use.

"Open source" advocates, either argue something else, beside the point, or philosophy down to the tautological.

You wont see someone even try to argue that open source is a fitting label of the full (as in freedom) free software.
And it isn't as if you have to say free software when speaking english, notably 'libre' works just as well.

Whose source is it anyway? That is the issue. I can make my own open source governing body and do the above, but i cant make a free software governing body and get away from what free software is. See how language works there? Notice how free software is very much defined and open source is only what it says on the tin.

Someone might trademark "open source" and start defending it, then "open source" could potentially have a point.
The word however, is missing a point.

Frei software foundation would work, but i suspect peoples german is worse than their spanish. In any sensible you have to qualify the verb if you want to say that it is free of something, so it works.

Also, CLAs are not funny.
 
Last edited:
I would argue that putting a NDA on it makes it 'source available' or some-such. [...] Also, CLAs are not funny.

Fine, how about the FSF requesting CLAs in form of copyright transfers for GNU projects to the FSF? Makes that GNU software "source available" or non-free? Like in the GNU Nano controversy? Or the previous GNUTLS contoversy? Is the FSF missing the point of free and open source software? ... I would argue yes... also for instance in this case: free "FreeCAD can't use free "LibreDWG" due to stubborn FSF/RMS.
[doublepost=1481393892,1481393387][/doublepost]
Also, philosophically they come from very different places, so it is kinda pointless to try to combine them except as different from typical proprietary/closed source software.
Well, I think you refer to the infamous post of RMS where he acuses the OSS people of having no philosphy but "just" looking for practical benefit. I think this is and was a propagandistic exaggeration to discredit the OSS/OSI. I believe they share the same philosophical background, motivation and line of thinking, while the OSS people believe in advertising the philosophy by practical results, the RMS/FSF seems more interested in purity of the ideology instead of results which could act as encouraging example. To make this even more clear: the FSF is willing to burn down the complete software ecosystem of FOSS, instead of compromising their ideology and finding solutions with external entities (see ZFS + Linux kernel). The OSS and OSI people are more about collaboration and practical results, they would be never that dogmatic. And that is the very reason why we have the linux kernel (not GNU/linux) and not Hurd until now.

Coming back to the original point; this doesn't mean OSS has no philosophy or coming from another school of thinking, they just believe in other methods for spreading the same idea than the FSF.
 
Last edited:
NDAs are not CLAs, and signing copyright to FSF allows them to represent the software legally. Yes why?
You have a problem understanding law, english, or both, so you invent things. That is not an argument.

There is no OSS/OSI, it is not the same thing. How things seem to you, and what you think about it, and the claims you make, are not arguments.

Who are the OSS people? You didn't have an original point.
Are you aware of what happens when the FSF does not defend free software? Do you understand that licenses are legal documents?

I don't know if i can even explain the simplest thing to you. See if you can figure out a way to do something differently, then detail that way.
Stringing together a bunch of cases and sticking "controversy" on them, is FOX news and CNN level argumentation.

The pyra schematics are open. Does not make them libre. No amount of lazy mental gymnastics changes that.

Get this, nobody is pretending the FSF is perfect. Free as in freedom software however, is by necessity good, where open source is vague.
And news news, OSI-open source is free software.
 
NDAs are not CLAs, and signing copyright to FSF allows them to represent the software legally. Yes why?
You have a problem understanding law, english, or both, so you invent things. That is not an argument.
It's quite easy understandable, the FSF pulls the same corporate-like mumbojumbo with CLAs other entities get blamed for (like canonical) if it suits them. So I'm quite unimpressed with them and their hysterical defended "Free software".

You wont see someone even try to argue that open source is a fitting label of the full (as in freedom) free software..
BSD people would like to have a word with you on this. They believe with good reasons their permissive licensesare more free than the FSF style copyleft licenses. And permissive license are now associated with "open source" and recommended by them, unlike copyleft recommneded by the FSF (while destroyed by them with the GPlv3).
 
Why would the FSF care what you think? You dont have the knowledge or the capability to even form an argument. This is a non-issue.

Read. Free, as in freedom, software. You are wasting space, time and effort. 0/10.
 
To present a critique of the license chosen, i think it should be a minimum requirement to undersand what free software is.
Then put oneself in the position of ED.

Right now open hardware isn't so much of a legal protection as it is a thing with wishes attached.
What matters, before it gets established, and eventually turns into some kind of legal apparatus, sans applying for patents under the current system, is what you can do with it.

What the license enables you to do, is precisely everything you could wish to do with it, and then you can ask ED for anything else.
Its not as if that level of involvement wouldn't warrant posing a question anyhow.

So it matters not what ecosystem you subscribe to, where you align it, but what you can do, that _is_ pragmatism, and I'm sure ED will meet any even half thought-through effort at-least half-way.

Sorry for feeding into going off-topic on an offtopic.
 
Back
Top