Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 26th Aug 2009 22:23 UTC
When Windows Vista was launched, the Free Software Foundation started its BadVista campaign, which was aimed at informing users about what the FSF considered user-restrictive features in Vista. Luckily for the FSF, Vista didn't really need a bad-mouthing campaign to fail. Now that Windows 7 is receiving a lot of positive press, the FSF dusted off the BadVista drum, and gave it a fresh coat of paint.
Thread beginning with comment 380838
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Not limited to one way thieve clal themself ...
by Moulinneuf on Thu 27th Aug 2009 06:18
in reply to "RE: Not limited to one way thieve clal themself ..."
Member since:2005-07-06
for simply questioning
They are not questionning , they are slandering and libelling against the FSF anonymously , with the full knowledge that the justice system statuated they where wrong.
you pretty much reinforce the image
No , I destroy the painting , because if my action would really have any effect , then GNU/Linux would not be #1 and a mainstream growing OS ...
the FSF fostering a movement of zealots and serve to undermine the principles that the FSF advocates
Can't stop liar and cowards from making stuff up , like you just did based on real wars they see on TV ... Just showing by extreme how ridiculous their liea and made up fictions are.
Did it occur to you that the developers contributing to BSD-licensed projects wanted their code to be "free" for developers to use as they wanted?
Did it occur to you that to be licensed or relicensed the code can only be by the owner of that code ?
Seems to me it worked pretty well.
Of course it's the leat used code with the least support both from it's own community and from corporation or hardware maker and distributor ...
How can you call it a failure?
I am a longtime BSD professional ...
It has different objectives than the GPL,
No , it had the same exact objective and goal of the GPL. Freeing proprietary code ( UNIX ).
and the adoption of BSD software by "thieves and liars" underscores its success.
So what you are saying is success is measured by how thief and liar , like it and use it and the espense of BSD itself ...
Your arguments against it are reminiscent of Microsoft's criticism of the GPL being cancerous.
Microsoft is against the GPL , I don't make an argument against real BSD , history as shown that it don't work.
The ultimate freedom lies with developers to choose how their software can be distributed.
No , the ultimate Freedom is when everyone is equal at all level , when nothing get closed and everything is really Open Source , so that everyone can improve it , study it , learn from it and finally improve or change it.
You can't do that with the majority of BSD's.
You don't have a say in that
It's the entire BSD who are lying , illegal and without property of their own , that don't have any say.
until you start coding.
You seem to have it in your mind to say that only BSD coder/developer have any say ...
developers have the right to decide how their code can be used.
Yes , with their code , not the code of others they are allowed to use.
The point is that the FSF is often critical of licenses that don't meet their arbitrary standards of the four freedoms,
No , the point is the owner of the code get to decide.
If your stealing it ( UNIX ) and using someone else code ( GPL , MIT , ETC ... ) ( in your illegal derivative ( BSD) ) , your not the owner and your relicensing is illegal.
but overlooks the fact that alternative licenses have still powered popular and successful projects that benefit the OSS community, and their users, in general. Doesn't make anyone a liar or thief.
Yes of those that steal other code and relicinse it to close it illegally , when nothing and no one gave them the permission to do so.
I suspect the irony of your answer is entirely lost.
Because their is no irony ? Their is many company that do not steal Free Software or other code and do fine everyday , they use legal base witch they acquired legally and got permission by the owner to use , you don't have to deal with GPL code at all , if that is your wish.
Who are you to say that?
Moulinneuf ...
Why is your world so black-and-white?
I live in a colored world , where GPL hater have this tendency of saying , and lying about it in doing so , that they don't hate the GPL when their entire speech and position is anti-GPL and majoritarely also anti FSF.
I don't have a problem with the GPL
Yes , you do.
I've enjoyed the benefits of using linux for a number of years now.
Your not just enjoying the kernel ...
guess that makes me a liar, thief, and coward because I don't spam online forums advocating the superiority of the GPL.
No , but that sentence of yours make you a moron.
Defending the GPL against liar , coward and thief don't make it superior or being advocated or more into your point the only possible choice.
It's certainly not being SPAMMED either , in a topix witch is under a category about it.
I'll continue to respect the choice of the developers,
Your certainly doing the opposite of that by bashing the GPL , and it's user's , advocate , developers and contributor's every chance you get ...
It's sad that you have such a burning zealotry that becomes apparent every time a GPL-related post appears here.
No what is sad is that you don't know the meaning of most of the word you use , if I where a zealot , I would try to kill you just for disagreeing with me.
Without any reply or advance notice.
What your really doing is trying to remove my right to oppose your lies and nonsense that have no basis in reality or in laws.
If you harnessed that energy for advocacy ... contributing to the cause you serve.
I can do both , even do I am not doing advocacy , people with more talent and skills for it then me already do that.
rather than toxic, denigrating and, frankly, obnoxious attacks,
Pathethic really , how in a FSF Launches 'Windows 7 Sins' Campaign article , the BSD fabulate themself that they are the victims of a toxic , denigrating and frankly obnoxious attack ...
RE[3]: Not limited to one way thieve clal themself ...
by ssa2204 on Thu 27th Aug 2009 07:10
in reply to "RE[2]: Not limited to one way thieve clal themself ..."
Member since:2006-04-22
RE[3]: Not limited to one way thieve clal themself ...
by helf on Thu 27th Aug 2009 13:52
in reply to "RE[2]: Not limited to one way thieve clal themself ..."
Member since:2005-07-06
RE[3]: Not limited to one way thieve clal themself ...
by dostrowski on Thu 27th Aug 2009 17:33
in reply to "RE[2]: Not limited to one way thieve clal themself ..."
Member since:2006-11-10
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-07-13
You do realize that every time you accuse someone of stealing, or call them a liar, coward or thief, for simply questioning the GPL/FSF/"Free Software", you pretty much reinforce the image of the FSF fostering a movement of zealots and serve to undermine the principles that the FSF advocates, which ultimately advocate user choice? Just wondering.
Did it occur to you that the developers contributing to BSD-licensed projects wanted their code to be "free" for developers to use as they wanted? Seems to me it worked pretty well. How can you call it a failure? It has different objectives than the GPL, and the adoption of BSD software by "thieves and liars" underscores its success. Your arguments against it are reminiscent of Microsoft's criticism of the GPL being cancerous. The ultimate freedom lies with developers to choose how their software can be distributed. You don't have a say in that, until you start coding.
Open Source is about development method where the source is always open to all.
So they don't pretend anything , actually it's reverso world. The Open Source liar and thieve , usually emphais that Open Source can be closed by them when the permission to do so is not given.
OSS is a development method. Libre software is a philosophy. The two overlap, but once again, developers have the right to decide how their code can be used. The GPL is one choice developers have, among many others. The point is that the FSF is often critical of licenses that don't meet their arbitrary standards of the four freedoms, which is certainly their right, but overlooks the fact that alternative licenses have still powered popular and successful projects that benefit the OSS community, and their users, in general. Doesn't make anyone a liar or thief.
Because your the one who is clearly nuts , you can simply avoid all GPL , by not touching it or try to illegally steal it and use it and close it ...
"
I suspect the irony of your answer is entirely lost.
Yes , you are. "
Who are you to say that? Why is your world so black-and-white?
But that's ok , if you steal GPL code or really beome a problem for the FSF. The Justice system and penalty come into play.
I don't have a problem with the GPL, either. I've enjoyed the benefits of using linux for a number of years now. I guess that makes me a liar, thief, and coward because I don't spam online forums advocating the superiority of the GPL.
I'm grateful for the work the developers of the software I use have done. I'll respect whatever license they choose to license their software under. Until I can start coding at that level and producing my own software for the community, I'll continue to respect the choice of the developers, rather than inflicting my demands on them. As a user, I have to respect their freedom to choose, and then make my own choice as to what works for me.
It's sad that you have such a burning zealotry that becomes apparent every time a GPL-related post appears here. If you harnessed that energy for advocacy rather than toxic, denigrating and, frankly, obnoxious attacks, you might find yourself actually contributing to the cause you serve.