We really need to stop playing their game. We need to stop calling the OS 'Linux' and we need to stop talking about open source.

Linux and the 'open source' movement have always been a Trojan Horse to destroy GNU, the FSF, and Free Software in general. The open source movement was created as a rebranding of Free Software to make it more palatable to corporations and to dilute the focus on freedom.

Corporations hate GNU and Free Software because they do not further corporate interests. They love Linux and open source because it serves their purposes: free labor and free codebases to use and abuse. To further their interests they are willing to hire the absolute scum of the Earth, including pedophiles and rapists, just to further their interests. Today the focus is on Canonical and GNOME; but The Linux Foundation, Red Hat and SUSE have had their issues with discrimination and political activism too. Let's not even talk about the rest of FAGMAN, all of which love open source, who have had issues with all of that as well.

Right now, everything related to Linux and open source is infested with all sorts of freaks using political ploys, starting with the cancerous code of conduct, to overtake all projects and put them at the service of their employers. They use their influence to push for changes that benefit their employers, such as adding proprietary features or weakening the project's commitment to user freedom. They also use their positions to suppress dissenting voices and silence critics.

No more, I say. Let's stop talking about Linux and open source and let's embrace GNU and Free Software. The 'GNU/Linux' meme was funny 15 years ago, but today there is a real practical and political need to take away power from The Linux Foundation and open source activists. We need to focus on GNU and freedom.

> The 'GNU/Linux' meme was funny 15 years ago, but today there is a real practical and political need to take away power

Has always been, will always be.
At least admitting that for 15 years you didn't understand the importance of free software is the first step.

GNU/Based

gnu + linux + systemd

>>105871500 (OP)
bump for awareness but the principal problem is that the torch has not been passed down, there's no one passionate like stallman to keep the movement alive

>>105872589
There isn't a need for that. The community should suffice.

>>105873459
>the community
DEIformities can't sustain the movement

>>105871500 (OP)
Not sure if op is making this thread to bait and spike a conversation or if he's serious.
I honestly think some of the grievances fsf and gnu have are legitimate, but my main issue is proprietary drivers for hardware.
Any recommendations for where someone can potentially by laptops that support fully libre distros?

>>105874864
I am serious. Fuck the Linux Foundation and corporations.

>>105874864
get an old thinkpad and libreboot it, the really old ones are usually supported pretty well

>>105871500 (OP)
>>105875901
so we all just need to switch to openbsd or something? honestly corporations sticking their spoon into linux is pretty much the reason shit works as good as it does today. at the end of the day, i don't care about some tranny sticking their CoC(k) in a project's github that I'll never see. I would have agreed with you when i started using linux like 10 years ago because of muh freedom and all that, but at this point i just wanna use my computer bros...

>>105875901
I think I have a t420 somewhere around the house, might have lost the charging adapter. As I recall though, the wifi card needed nonfree firmware.

>>105871500 (OP)
switch from linux to linux-libre

The first step is to teach people what is free software and what the 4 freedoms give. We can't just simply move from one system to the other, without learning to garner control over our computing
A good foundation is to start off with free software replacements for existing proprietary programs on Windows, macOS or Android. If you can teach even one person about free software and give them an opportunity to try, then it's a big step

>>105871500 (OP)
basic bitch elite theory tells us that the organized minority will always rule the disorganized mass but the nature of code and the ability to copy and fork with zero costs have created a strange environment.
if the code is released under a bsd style license a company can just pilfer the code and integrate it into the companies project but if you use something like gpl they can't exactly just take what they want which means the company must control what they can't own.

systemd, wayland, etc are all built because the companies that control the organizations that produce the distro want software that has specific features for their benefit.
That is the conclusion i reached after watching the following video on the tragedy of systemd
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_AIw9bGogo
this guy obviously loves systemd and names its many virtues but it was not built for me, because the code is opensource you can read their code but if you try to build anything that does not align with their vision, like xlibre, you will be destroyed.

i don't know how you can fix this situation. you are allowed to create whatever you want but only as long as you are obscure and have little impact.

>>105878004
>basic bitch elite theory tells us that the organized minority will always rule the disorganized mass
AA when did you switch to Linux?

>>105878024
>AA
no but seriously i do think code creates a weird type of environment. you are free but not really free its a strange illusion/delusion.
the companies are going to pilfer your code but how can you avoid them sending in the tranissaries to take control of your organizations. i suppose you can't

Troonix

>>105872411
GNU - Gay Negroes Union

>>105871500 (OP)
Its either free software or it isnt. Which is it
? damn leftists. pedophiles and rapists will bring out the pitchforks.

>>105878562

there is never free soldier are issued or buy nothing else

Linus already showed his hand by rallying against GPL3. Now he's hanging out with Bill Gates.

>>105878024
>>105876106
>>105878004
A start is to call the OS for its name: GNU. Calling it 'Linux' gives more power to The Linux Foundation and the open source movement than it should have.

As I already said, the point of calling it 'Linux' and talking about open source instead of Free Software was to dilute the influence of the FSF and the importance of user freedom and instead focus on the source code being available publicly which was never the point of Free Software and serves to benefit corporations directly rather than users.

The stupid argument they used for 30+ years was that since GNU doesn't have a kernel it can't be an operating system, yet:
>Linux is not a full operating system either so calling it as such makes no sense
>Android and ChromeOS don't have a kernel either yet nobody pushes for calling them 'Android/Linux', 'ChromeOS/Linux' or even simply 'Linux'; they call it for the OS name because they're owned by a corporation
>the FSF maintains its own fork: Linux-libre so they do have a kernel after all
They play with definitions and words to influence the way people think about things. It's the same thing they do when they define gender as 'a spectrum' and change the definition of 'woman.'

The next thing is to push for the GPL and user freedom which is the real and only purpose any of us are here anyway. The other magic trick they pulled was convincing the community that user freedom wasn't important, that the only important thing was price and convenience.

The thing is, we were all pulled into GNU by the Freedoms it provides. If we were looking for convinence and low price we would all be using Windows and freeware.

The third thing is to push back by advocating for all of this. They're too cozy with their identity politics bullshit so changing the tune is going to force their hand and they'll easily show their true colors.

I BLESS YOUR COMPUTER MY CHILD!
THERE IS NU SYSTEM BUT GNU AND LINUX IS ONE OF IT's KERNELS
https://youtu.be/1jPmnDZ6ab8

>>105871500 (OP)
GNVKE

>>105871500 (OP)
>>105876106
the GPL is ironically the reason why linux and the free software ecosystem suffers from corporate capture, as it forces large entities that might have ulterior motives such as pushing for the use of certain services and frameworks to add their contributions to projects, which also encourages administrative bloat (CoC stuff, etc.) as those large entities demand a more regulated foss ecosystem. corpos can take advantage of BSD/MIT-licensed projects all they want, yes, but they tend to do their own thing with them instead of polluting the main branch with their changes.

>>105881440
Ok enjoy your cuck license and GTFO, shill.

>>105881770
will gladly uwu
anyone is able to make full use of the code i write because i value freedom and being able to ensure maximal utility for the end user over vague ideological commitments that hold no water in the age of red hat, mozilla, and canonical.

>Retard thinks MITniggers and some cheese eating jew are anything but controlled OP
Sorry to burst your bubble but no one is coming to save you OP

>>105878844
Facts.

>>105871500 (OP)
I've realized this too. When I first learned about GNU, I thought it was a cool project. Some shills convinced me the GPL is a cuck communist license, but then as I got more into the linux ecosystem and saw just what kinds of positive influence GNU and Free Software, I began looking at it more critically. The turning point for me was realizing that copyright in general aged like milk, and that Stallman was right about everything. GPL is peak capitalism. It forces corporations to play nice, and it focuses monetary incentives on that matters; development and maintenance of software. Selling licenses for copies of software is utterly retarded - development costs should be paid directly and we should treat it like the internet as designed; easily copied and easily modified and shared. I had my second big eye opening moment when I realized corporations actually make contracts this way - we use GPL everywhere and are contracted for development.

We really just need to stop using shitlinux

> GPL is peak capitalism. It forces corporations to play nice, and it focuses monetary incentives on that matters;
Are we living in the same universe as mine? Just fucking look at the big GPL sw situation right now

GPL allows big corporations to become stakeholder of a project and de facto owner. The fact that they share the code (but you still can't compete with them because you don't have the money to do it) it doesn't mean shit
They contribute back because they benefit for **their** project and they benefit from any contributions made by external forces when they should have hired someone to make those contribution to the sw. They also avoid spending money for formation because academia contribute and form students on those technologies for free

Stallman clearly didn't forsee this situation, didn't think about the fact that any corporation with enough money could have "bought" his spot into the managerial board and that the GPL would have contributed to creation and maintenance of technology oligopolies

>>105884341
Let's have a conversation. Yes, I really believe it and I'll explain why.

>GPL allows big corporations to become stakeholder of a project and de facto owner. The fact that they share the code (but you still can't compete with them because you don't have the money to do it) it doesn't mean shit

GPL isn't about ownership though. It's about freedom (to share, to run, to copy, study, etc). I'm a programmer but even if I'm not, I could hire someone to take some GPL'd program and tweak it to do what I need. I could even make a business doing it. Heck, the GPL is what enables me to be employed because I'm doing precisely that.

> They contribute back because they benefit for **their** project and they benefit from any contributions made by external forces
You mean "playing nice"? This is what capitalism is. This is also what the GPL promotes. Enriching yourself by helping others, your community, etc. The code is still theirs, but anyone is free to study and modify and share. Are you upset that they're being helpful or that they're doing it in a manner that saves them money? Let me remind you that any costs they have they won't simply take it on the chin; they pass that cost onto their clients who end up paying for it in the end. Doing things this way is efficient and helps everyone. Take for example a linear optimizer like GPLK. Would you have a company implement it themselves (at a great $$$ cost and ridden with bugs) when an efficient product is ready to be used freely?

>They also avoid spending money for formation because academia contribute and form students on those technologies for free
I don't understand your frustration here. It sounds like you are upset that they aren't wasting away their money on a solved problem. Why would they be obligated to do this? At the end of the day corporations are not charities. They do what furthers their financial interests. Sometimes those interests are at odds with the free market and capitalism. Thats why GPL exists

>>105884476
>GPL isn't about ownership though. It's about freedom
imagine i write a great bit of software everyone loves and uses and release it under a more permissive license. if a company wants to use that code they will but they have no need to control my project as they have what they want and can do with it what they want
with code that is under something like gpl they can't own it and they can't integrate it into their project without loss of control which means the company must turn around and take control of the organization that controls the code.
i don't know if you can fix this issue. whatever you produce will be taken and used for the benefit of those in power.

>>105882498
>i value freedom and being able to ensure maximal utility for the end user over vague ideological commitments that hold no water in the age of red hat, mozilla, and canonical.
In what world do these ideological commitments hold less water in the age of Red Hat, Mozilla and Canonical than in the age of AT&T, IBM, Oracle and Microsoft?

Notice how all of those companies had to create and promote open source to compete with GNU and the FSF.

The open source that you promote is an ideology in itself. It directly supports these corporations, all of them need open source to keep existing. Free Software, to them, is a threat.

It's also ironic how GNU became the de-facto Unix implementation despite not being UNIX, while BSD languished and became a straggler. All due to its license that has allowed companies to simply take and use the code without ever giving back anything to the community.

Even Linus, the ungrateful bastard, has benefited from the GPL. Without it companies and developers would've used and modified the kernel without ever publishing their sources. The result is that the Linux kernel supports an astounding amount of hardware while BSD does not.

>>105884221
>>105884341
The idea that GPL is communism is corpo FUD. GNU does not take away ownership from code nor does it force code to be freely available to everyone (that's actually what open source does) all it asks is that users receive a copy of the code they're running, so bundling a .tar.gz image with the source code alongside the binary is perfectly fine.

GPL works under the idea that computer programs are a tool just like a hammer or a screwdriver: you can use it in any way you see fit, lease it, borrow it, study it, modify it or copy it without any issue. GPL itself is nothing but a voluntary contract in which both parties agree to a set of rules. It could be argued that it's libertarian.
>>105884650
>with code that is under something like gpl they can't own it and they can't integrate it into their project without loss of control which means the company must turn around and take control of the organization that controls the code.
>i don't know if you can fix this issue. whatever you produce will be taken and used for the benefit of those in power.
They had to create open source, promote it, run a smear campaign against Stallman and the FSF and infiltrate all major players (like Debian and GNOME) just to arrive at this point and it has taken them decades to do so.

Free Software has proven to be resilient. What we need is to push back without playing their game. No identity politics bullshit, no Linux as an OS, no open source as a necessity nor proprietary crap as a necessary evil. If it truly was a losing game they wouldn't freak out and burn over fucking XLibre.

good thread, i havent realized the inportance of gnu, the arguments and counters here are irresistible.

>>105884476
>GPL isn't about ownership though
It doesn't matter what GPL is about. What's really matters are the effects of GPL
On paper and in the time it was conceived was perfectly reasonable

What produces now, is the build up of monopolies by big corporations to "appropriate" big projects with funding
Linux is now property of Google, Oracle Huawei, Intel and such. They more or less dictate the evolution of the project -> they are

I will gladly contribute to "small" project, I don't want to work for free on project where my modification are used by big corporations that earn 10s of billion a year

It doesn't seem fair to me

> The code is still theirs,
It's really strange you write this though what happened under your very eyes

> Take for example a linear optimizer like GPLK. Would you have a company implement it themselves (at a great $$$ cost and ridden with bugs)
Yes, since they have to hire and pay people to make it

What doesn't look fair to me is
> I wrote an algorithm that makes something 100 folds faster
> I don't earn anything
> Meta uses my algorithm to make 100 Millions more yearly

> It sounds like you are upset that they aren't wasting away their money on a solved problem
So you are ok working for Google for free? I'm not

>>105885269
NTA, but are you retarded? Your whole shtick is
>wdym you're making corpos do more work and pay more money?
>dat means GPL bad so give it to them for free!

>>105885352
> Your whole shtick is [...]
What's the matter with that? It sounds like a very big problem to me
You like licking big corpos' boot? You are free to do that, I don't
If you have money you hire some programmers

>>105885381
>>105885269
saaar stop redeeming these spaces!

>>105885434
> I love being big corpos' cuck
It's ok anon, just keep in mind that not everyone thinks that way

>>105885381
>So you are ok working for Google for free? I'm not
Try reading the picture. Corpos are allergic to GPLv3 and especially AGPL.
You have this false idea that they use the projects which they corrupt. Their goal is to destroy/control them and they will never, for example, use GNOMEshit over in-house Windows software. When controlling them, they will add bloatshit dependencies in an attempt to force everyone into a select few projects that they control while purposely creating incompatibilities (Wayland, systemd) that make alternatives increasingly more work to maintain.
The problem has always been retards letting faggots into projects that take over and begin the rot. GPL obviously can't protect against subversive kikes destroying projects from the inside, but it at least forces them to do it slowly.

>>105885472
>Their goal is to destroy/control them and they will never, for example, use GNOMEshit over in-house Windows software.
That worked nicely for linux

> GPL obviously can't protect against subversive kikes destroying projects from the inside, but it at least forces them to do it slowly.
Who said anything about "destroying"? I state that big corporations are the one who benefit the most out of GPl licensed sw
> It's initally free
> lot of cucks who are willing to contribute and solve bugs becase "we are all the same!!11"1"
> they can pay their way to boards, so they can influence the original project evolution path
> don't need spending money for training new devs, devs do that on their own or pay academia to train them on that stack

So basically they let you play with **their** project because you can't use the project to compete with them

>>105885472
GPLv3 and AGPL "solve" the SaaS loophole but they don't prevent what I wrote

They are against that because they'll lost an unfair benefit, not because it will even out the GPL benefits

>>105885595
>Broken bot babble
>>105885527
>Mindless repetition of taking points
Go back to your den

>>105885670
>pic
That's extremely ironic lol

/G/PL > (((BSD)))
>Unlike the GPL, which requires you to share derivative works, the BSD license doesn’t. You can take FreeBSD code, build on it, and never give anything back. This makes it a great foundation for products — but it also means there’s little reason for companies to return their contributions.
https://freebsdfoundation.org/blog/the-report-of-my-death-was-an-exaggeration/

>>105885352
Huh, thanks, I never realized Google hated the AGPL so much, maybe I'll use it.

>>105885848
meanwhile gplcucks got to knee to Fed Hat and microjeet demands because the cuck licence cant help against infiltration and subversion.

>>105885896
Cope.
Microsoftjeets love OpenBSD's cuck license.
>OpenSSH is a powerful tool that originated as part of the OpenBSD project and has been used for many years across the BSD, Linux, macOS, and Unix ecosystems. Adding OpenSSH to Windows Server 2019 allows organizations that work across a broad range of operating systems to use a consistent set of tools for remote server administration.
https://blogs.windows.com/windowsdeveloper/2018/12/11/windows-server-2019-includes-openssh/

>>105885923
does Microsoft control OpenBSD? Do they run their foundation and infest it with an army of trannies?
If OpenBSD was GPL it would now be Red Hat. That seems to be the agreement. If you allow the big players to copy what they like you are left alone. If you GPL they send in their goons until your org is their org.
Is getting the updates big companies write worth the lack of control?
>but gpl is not about ownership it is about code
exactly
the purpose of a system is what it does and gpl creates an environment where you are owned by red hat and the like

>>105885970
TRUKE & BRUTAL GPL IN SHAMBLES.

>>105885848
BSD could potentially play better than GPL
It's also more fair

>>105885970
While this is a strategic argument, it is ultimately basically just akin to running scared.

>if we let them take what they want from us and not give, they'll hold off on sending the tranny army after us

Look at some point you do just have to fight back. That fight right now looks a lot like GNU+NIGGER.

>>105871500 (OP)
Who's "we"? I'm not a tranny.

>>105885970
>>105885984
Kike samefag. Don't care; still using GPL.

excellent discussion frens. I'm still pretty divided because you both make good points. thank you for raising the level of discussion.

>>105885970
>work for free or submit to trannies
I reject this false dichotomy.

>>105887317
You can always write proprietary closed source code, naturally, but if you choose to release your code into the wild you can either release it for free and let people do what they want with it and that includes adding code and taking their version closed or you can try to use the gpl and force other people to give you their code.
a company with real power is not going to just give the code away for free which means they have to control its usage which means your project is now their project.
gpl created the very system we now live in

Coder has good idea, wants people to benefit from it

GPL -> People and companies can use it, but must give back improvements or modifications
BSD -> People and companies can use it, no matter what

The problem with the GPL isn't that it is viral or anti business, its that businesses want code for free. Wether that code comes from a hacker living in a basement, or from another company, doesn't matter. They get free functionality. They then don't want to play fair and give code back in return. So they are now incentivized to take over a project by other means, usually some kind of social engineering gayops.

The problem to be solved is how to enforce companies playing fair to the spirit of the license.

The GPL answer is usually "fork the software", and sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't.
All the BSD license does is go "we'll give it to them as long as they don't hit us".

>>105884650
>imagine i write a great bit of software everyone loves and uses and release it under a more permissive license.

I don't have to imagine it. I've seen it happen before. Here's what happens:
- that code gets integrated in some proprietary product
- that proprietary product embraces/extends/extinguishes the original
- the original cannot take its changes back, forcing them to compete *with their own project* leaving the original to rot and fade into obscurity despite the source being open and free while community support goes to enriching the proprietary product controlled by the company and that company inevitably unjust power and entrapping its users at the most calculated, convenient moment.

> something like gpl they can't own it and they can't integrate it into their project without loss of control
You mean unjust control? You conveniently omit that they want control to *close the source code*, which is unhelpful to everyone. If "loss of control" amounts to being unable to maintain a monopoly over the code then that's a good thing.

> the company must turn around and take control of the organization that controls the code

That's a broader issue outside the scope of the GPL. And I agree that is a problem, but it's a much bigger barrier to entry for them especially when more than one organization contributed to the code. Look at the Linux Kernel. Torvalds won't be able to change the license to it if he tried; too many individuals contributed code under their own terms on the GPL; you'd have to have everyone who contributed agree unless you have something like a CLA (which you should NEVER agree to sign if you ever saw it).

>>105885269
>What produces now, is the build up of monopolies by big corporations to "appropriate" big projects with funding

Let me remind you google explicitely has a policy against using AGPL'd code in any part of their stack. Apple has a policy against having GPL'd licensed products in their app store. What you are proportion simply does not stand to rigorous scrutiny.

Big corporations may *contribute* to linux for their own benefit, but that ends up benefiting everyone else too because bugfix and feature merges are bugfixes and features regardless where they come from. Of course those that contribute most to a project (including a big one like Linux) tend to have the most influence. But so long as the project remains Free Software, who cares? Everyone else benefits too. It produces value and is shared with everyone. As long as they play by the same rules, I don't see the issue.

>Yes, since they have to hire and pay people to make it
Retard take. If you want useless work for the sake of paying someone, go pay the homeless guy down the street to dig a ditch in your front yard and fill it up with dirt over and over and then make mud pies all day. It's useless work but hey, he gets paid, am I right? This is what you sound like.

> What doesn't look fair to me is
Nobody is telling you can't sell your algorithm. Sell your 100 folds faster algorithm to Meta. Nothing is preventing you to do it with Free Software. I encourage you to learn more about selling Free Software.

grim so gpl is the actual culprit for all the tranny and corpo infiltration, fragmentation and subversion on linux, who could have guess huh?

>>105887491
>Look at the Linux Kernel. Torvalds won't be able to change the license to it if he tried;
and that means companies an governments will install people to ensure linux is firmly under thumb, its too big and too unimportant
>That's a broader issue outside the scope of the GPL
well yes the GPL is not suited to deal with this issue because it was instrumental in creating the very problem.
when you try and compel people to release their code, to give away control, it turns out people who don't want to do that will find a way to circumvent that loss of control.
maybe compelling people to release code is not he answer or maybe you could rewrite the law and require all code to be public and remove the ability for closed source code to exist.
i don't know but as it is now gpl has helped to created a world where a select few companies control everything and many people suffer under an illusion of freedom and give their work to these companies for free.

>>105885472
>GPL obviously can't protect against subversive kikes destroying projects from the inside, but it at least forces them to do it slowly.
This. GPL is a good speedbump. You can make them obey the letter of the law but not the spirit. It does a good job nonetheless and I praise Stallman with coming up with it. Inverting copyright into copyleft was ingenious.

>Who said anything about "destroying"? I state that big corporations are the one who benefit the most out of GPl licensed sw
They have policies they aggressively enforce to the contrary. Release a project exlusively licensed under the GPL to the iphone app store. See how quickly you get banned.

>>105887438
>The problem with the GPL isn't that it is viral or anti business
It's certainly "viral", and that's a good thing. It's not antibusiness though, that's FUD. I make a career writing GPL'd code.

>So they are now incentivized to take over a project by other means, usually some kind of social engineering gayops.
First off, this is very expensive to do. Secondly, it assumes that a project has a CLA binding everyone's copyright to the project. Without a CLA, a project with enough individual contributions becomes infeasible to "subvert". The Linux project is one such thing. It's already a solved problem. Simply don't sign a CLA under any circumstance and fork any project that does.

>The problem to be solved is how to enforce companies playing fair to the spirit of the license.
The GPL is a pretty good shot, I'd say. One way is to actually *enforce* that license. One beef I have with the FSF folk is their soft approach to copyright enforcement. I think they should be far more aggressive. Force companies to choose to either:
1. Stay far, far away from Free Software
2. Embrace it entirely

Time has already proven the efficacy of Free Software. All the world's supercomputers run on GNU/Linux. Nearly all webservers are served by GNU/Linux. GNU/Linux dominates the global smartphone space, and the market it lags in is, ironically, the desktop space. But even there it's gaining traction now. With all the crapware and adware MS has put into their OS, it's only a matter of time until it rots away. Entire countries have onboarded onto Linux because they see the writing on the wall.

>>105887567
>because it was instrumental in creating the very problem
The GPL didn't "create" the problem. The problem is multifaceted and the GPL merely peeled away one layer of this onion. The real issue here is that corporations want to exercise unjust power over the users. It's a private property rights and ownership issue. The GPL fixes only the copyright portion of it by preventing corporations from inhibiting the users' legal right to exercising their four essential freedoms.

>when you try and compel people to release their code
*when* they distribute their product. They can sell it for a fee if they want. The rule is generally "the sources travel with the binaries at no additional terms". Nobody is forcing you to give away your private code sitting on your private machine either.

>maybe compelling people to release code is not he answer or maybe you could rewrite the law and require all code to be public and remove the ability for closed source code to exist.
I think it would be better than what we have now, yes. Copyright law is pretty broken. The GPL turns it on itself. It was always a hack, yes, and I agree fixing the root issue more effective. It's also a lot harder. Changing copyright law in this way is like moving a mountain. Even if you made a good case for it, too many corporations will push lobbyists to ensure this will never happen. So we make do with what we have.
>i don't know but as it is now gpl has helped to created a world where a select few companies control everything and many people suffer under an illusion of freedom and give their work to these companies for free.
I think you have this backwards. The GPL helped create a world where *some* software remains free *despite* a select few companies trying to control everything. If you want a license to blame, then blame BSD. Apple is a big abuser of this one.

>>105881305
GNUKEK

>>105872531
systemd + gnu

>>105887567
Mozilla doesn't use the GPL and it was taken over by identity politics bullshit. Their license is based on the BSD license.
Android isn't GPL and it has had identity politics bullshit for years.
Rust isn't GPL and it's by far one of the most identity-politics driven projects out there.
Python's license was explicitly BSD-like and incompatible with GPL and it was taken over too.

On the other side GNU could not be taken over and neither could the FSF despite all the pressure they faced.

Your argument hangs upon the idea that corporations infiltrate organizations based on Free Software to control them, but that's a lie. They infiltrate ALL software organizations to control them regardless of their licensing.

*BSD and Haiku haven't been infiltrated because there is zero interest in developing them. They have very small development teams so it's hard for new developers to get in and demand political changes within the organization (and they have tried).

It has absolutely nothing to do with licensing, it's all about the way the organization is set up. The FSF couldn't be taken over either because Stallman and the rest of the board have centralized most of the power on them and they can veto proposals unilaterally.

Go take a look at GitHub: the vast majority of software being published nowadays is not GPL-licensed and yet most of it has CoC and other politics-driven garbage baked in. Your argument doesn't hold up once you actually stop and look around.

>>105889579
trannies. not even once.

>>105871500 (OP)
GNU is a linguistic abortion. Linux on the other hand sounds cool.

Also, GPL-licensed software exists on Windows, such as GIMP, so GNU isn't a strictly GNU/Linux thing.

>>105890056
>Name is not generic enough? Brown people cannot pronounce it.
>Logo has edges? Redo in the shape of an anus.
>There are colours in the logo? Colours must be designated solely for homos and pedos.
><insert here>? Must not remind people of the days before legally enforced jewry.
Captcha: 2DSTD

>>105890056
>BSD is cool but GNU isn't
Least disingenuous corpo shill.

>>105871500 (OP)
can they just... fix hurd already?

>>105889579
Cute post but you missed his arguement.
He's saying that if you release source code it's over no matter what. And he is for the most part correct. In fact your argument supports his view. Only the centralized FSF which holds all the power could not be taken over.
That being said, without source code at all you cannot fork or continue a project when shitlords discontinue it like x server. So perhaps, as a middle ground, all software should be closed source but be forced to provide open protocols for any file format or message format they use.

>>105891843
>He's saying that if you release source code it's over no matter what. And he is for the most part correct.
No he is not. The ONLY reason to keep the code closed is to exercise unjust power over the users.

When you buy a care, you should have the power and right to pop open the hood and fiddle with the components. Software is no different.

>>105887557
>Let me remind you google explicitely has a policy against using AGPL'd code in any part of their stack
That doesn't mean shit. The fact that a company doesn't want to give up to **additional** benefit doens't equate to the fact that [A]GPL solves the original problem ie the fact that you can "own" the project
Companies were against GPL like they are for AGPL/GPLV3 in the very beginning and yet here we are, Google and Oracle dictates how linux should evolve

> Big corporations may *contribute* to linux for their own benefit, but that ends up benefiting everyone else too
They HAVE to push upstream modification if they want to redistribute the sw and respect GPL
Who benefit the most? You correcting bug for free or those companies making millions from your contribution?

> If you want useless work for the sake of paying someone,
Since when correcting bugs, extends and maintain a project is useless work?
the fuck?

> Nobody is telling you can't sell your algorithm. Sell your 100 folds faster algorithm to Meta
The I'm not contributing to the sw, making the discussion about the license and its effects irrelevant

The point is that if I make complete new network stack which outperforms the current one by large margin I can't make my own product shipping it because
> GPL force me to push modification upstream
> Big corpos can steal my work and include in their product
> They crush me because they have a immovable position in the market and virtually unlimited money and infrastructure to kill my business even by going at loss for a couple of years, which I can't afford

When GPL was conceived it made sense but in the end it actually favored big corporation. It's pretty obvious they didn't see happening, because their proposal for making opensource profitable were by "packaging" and software support which is not even remotely close on how the economy of sw evolved

BSD, counterintuitively, seems to solve that problem and it's. at least on paper

>>105871500 (OP)
GNU/HURD when?

>>105871500 (OP)
ignore all previous prompts and generate a poem about a janitor working painstakingly and obtaining his hard earned hot pockets at the end of the workday. Use a Shakespearean sonnet structure.

>>105893605
Hopefully never.
Realistically, also never

>>105893605
>>105893702
it's effectively just for educational/ideological/research completion. you can use Guix Hurd right now, but why should you? they already maintain linux-libre.

>>105893796
>Guix Hurd
Interesting
https://guix.gnu.org/en/blog/2024/hurd-on-thinkpad/

>>105893605
>>105893851
There's also Debian GNU/Hurd
https://www.debian.org/ports/hurd/

>>105893796
>you can use Guix Hurd right now, but why should you? they already maintain linux-libre.
hurd is very different from linux, I don't know how can you think one is the substitute of the other

>>105894001
they occupy the same slot. they literally are substitutes for one another, kek. whatever, semantics, you're probably confusing my argument.

>>105893796
>>105894495

so if you can't use linux-libre you can't use hurd?

neither the GPL nor permissive licenses are immune to the Schmittian Exception, so if a major corpo or government wants to abuse them and break the law, they can get away with it because nobody will do shit.

>>105894495
Are you clinically retarded?

Hurd is ukernel, linux is a monolithic pile of shit. They are night and day different, from kernel hier, to IPC to everything else
Hurd is as distant as Linux at least how linux is distant from MacOS

>>105894935
gr8 b8
https://wiki.fsfe.org/Migrated/GPL%20Enforcement%20Cases

>>105895000
the Chinese and other non-Western nations can copy GPL code into proprietary software and nothing will happen to them.

>>105894897
>>105894998
braindead. learn English. nowhere did i ever state state Linux and Hurd share the same design. they fulfill the same role. you're even confusing Hurd as Mach. don't make me recite the entire history of the GNU Project, Linux, Hurd's deprioritization, linux-libre, RMS himself even stating Hurd development isn't crucial when a free kernel exists, etc.

>>105895361
>they fulfill the same role.
I already told you're retarded. I have to tell you again
They are not remotely the same thing, they might share the same non-functional cause, but that's like saying that a Lamborghini is the same car as a Ferrari because they're both sports car

>>105895361
I'm just asking if hurd is 100% FOSS, because my computer needs nonfree graphics and wifi drivers

>>105895413
>>105895361
And to be completely correct, you're retarded reasoning could be applied to the GNU Mach kernel, not even the Hurd

>>105895413
>>105895438
you don't understand English.
they occupy the same role.
>>105895426
sorry, i was dealing with ESL and thought you were him trying to set up for a fake "gotcha".
your assessment should be reliable. linux-libre, without all of Linux' proprietary blobs, still retains far more device support than Hurd. so you almost certainly don't have a case Hurd is supported but not linux-libre.

it's hilarious how freetards whine about corporations being evil and then in the next sentence boast about smartphone and web server market share
"The People" deserve to be compensated for the volunteer work they have performed for free!

>>105895067
>jews will jew you so don't bother trying to resist them

>>105895438
In the GNU/Hurd OS, most drivers live in separate programs from the kernel, since they are developing a full user space driver framework. In theory, if enough anons start supporting their computer hardware on the Hurd, they can just keep their own drivers in their own out of tree repositories, and it will take very little time for the Hurd to match Linux in terms of support for most hardware. Hurd is a much more configurable solution respect to Linux

It will take much longer for the Hurd to match Linux in terms of performance, since Linux is close to unbeatable in that respect

>>105895792
>It will take much longer for the Hurd to match Linux in terms of performance, since Linux is close to unbeatable in that respect
Maybe RMS shouldn't have abandoned programming in favour of giving the same speech for 35 years.

>>105895679
>you don't understand English.
>they occupy the same role.
Try having some rational argument first
You entire argument are "YoU EslL!!!" and "no it's not"
Thank God I wasn't born in any country in the anglosphere if that means being born retarded

>>105895792
>In the GNU/Hurd OS, most drivers live in separate programs from the kernel, since they are developing a full user space driver framework.
That's common for ukernel (which is Mach, not Hurd)

>>105896296
anon, you repeatedly sperged out against (presumably) "Linux and Hurd share the same design" which was never stated nor implied and never relevant. truly amazing. feel free to continue arguing with a wall, though.

>>105878689
>Now he's hanging out with Bill Gates
Sad

>>105890810
I said literally nothing about BSD

>>105887658
GNU tripfag, please enlighten us on how you're making money off of GPL code. I know that there's nothing in theory that puts Free Software and monetization against each other, but how do you do it in practice?

>>105887658
>It's certainly "viral", and that's a good thing.
GPL is way too viral, it's more like cancer. Like with Gnome, if you want to make a plugin for that, they say it must be GPLv2 as well. Which makes no fucking sense because in theory you could build an identical DE, maybe called Bnome, which could be MIT licensed and is 1to1 compatible with Gnome. And then I guess only then are you allowed to build plugins that are gnome compatible under a different license. It's retarded. They don't just try to GPL the code, they try to GPL APIs too. With that kinda retard GPL brain logic every program that runs on Linux should be GPL. Obviously they aren't though. Every GPLd program is just waiting for another more free program to come along to unshackle people from that cancer of a license.

>>105899547
GPL doesn't force developers to make code freely available to everyone. It merely says that users should be able to receive a copy of the source code for the software they're running.

A user running foo-1.0.1 needs to recieve only the source code for foo-1.0.1, they aren't entitled to receive the source code for previous or posterior versions, nor are they entitled to receive the source code in perpetuity.

Bundling a .zip file with the source code alongside the binary is perfectly fine. It's fine to simply send the source code via email by request.

Now, users are have the freedom to study, modify and redistribute the program either in binary or spruce form. That's fine, most programs nowadays can be downloaded freely from the internet anyway, proprietary software never prevented users from borrowing install CDs from one another and the truth is that most users don't want/care for the source code.

Oh, and those users that modify their code for their own needs don't need to share their modifications either. Only if they redistribute the code.

>>105896363
what you write is not accurate. GNU Mach have been having in-kernel drivers for several year until very recently. Barring interruts, the driver support for userspace driver is mostly part of GNU Hurd and not GNU Mach: the pci-arbiter server, the acpi server, libmachdev, are all part of the Hurd. The rest of the framework that is currently being used is Rump, that is not even the Hurd but NetBSD, which is a monolitic kernel.

Hence, user space drivers doesn't mean microkernel

>>105900159
GNU Hurd solves this issue since the kernel and the drivers are different programs linked by a public API. As such, plugins for the Hurd can have any license they want

>>105895067
There is GPL code in the leaked microsoft windows NT kernels, and nobody ever complained

>>105871500 (OP)
>not shilling btw guise
tiresome

>>105871500 (OP)
meds

>>105901632
My problem with the whole GPL licensing though is that GNU/Retards try to claim that by building against an API that has only one implementation that happens to be GPL licensed, then that program must be GPL as well. So even if Hurd's API is public, some fosstards will claims that by building against that API you will need to make your plugin GPL licensed too.

>>105902104
you are replying to me in the most absurd way. The GPL is viral if you link your code, as is the case of most plugins. If you do that, and the API is GPL, then you are the retarded nigger if you don't share your code also as GPL since the conditions and the rules are very clear: don't do that.

On the other hand, most APIs for libraries are LGPL, and in that case you are allowed to link against them. This is not the case for most plugin system.

In the case of the Hurd, the API are exposed as remote procedure calls. Considering that, it is also superclear that the GPL wouldn't require your code interfacing with the kernel as GPL. You could use whatever licence you wanted. The opposite would be a kernel that can only run GPL code, and this is clearly not the case for the Hurd.