Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 26th Aug 2009 22:23 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source 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 380890
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Moulinneuf
Member since:
2005-07-06

What is with you and oddly placed spaces?


Bad writting skills.

And doesn't emacs have spellcheck by now?


I am not using emacs.

If your presence shows anything ... following to feel balanced.


You see fanatios and followers in your alphabet soup and breakfest cocopop ...

It isn't enough to simply use an alternative.


Windows is the alternative ... So do Apple , BSD , commodore , Amiga , beos , etc ...

You have to feel morally superior to the opposition.


I don't feel moraly involved or superior to anyone here , I certainly don't see liar , coward , thieve and morons as opposition either.

And Stallman provides you with that feeling, doesn't he?


Stallman is about feeling for you , one of pure hatred and demonizing and even similar to the devil in your own madness and disconection from reality.

Stallman for me is the guy who created the FSF , helped foster the GPL and who stand for Free Software defense , creation and advocating.

Why you don't use your real name ?

Reply Parent Score: 2

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Stallman for me is the guy who created the FSF , helped foster the GPL and who stand for Free Software defense , creation and advocating. Why you don't use your real name ?



Richard Stallman created the concept of Free** Software as in not free as in beer but Free as in an open source license that requires derivative work to fall under the same license. But instead of giving it a name that accurately describes it like "Forced Open License" he drapes the whole thing in "Freedom" as if the ability to look at the source is a divine right. The shocking thing is how so many people actually buy into it. It really makes me wonder about theories regarding a religious fanaticism gene.

I don't use my real name because I don't want to test the extremes of foss fanaticism. If you don't like it then tough because part of the fun of the internet is being able to call bs on groups like the fsf without having to worry about personal reprisals.

Edited 2009-08-27 09:21 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Richard Stallman created the concept of Free** Software as in not free as in beer but Free as in an open source license that requires derivative work to fall under the same license. But instead of giving it a name that accurately describes it like "Forced Open License" he drapes the whole thing in "Freedom" as if the ability to look at the source is a divine right.


How is this any different in principle from "forced closed" (or proprieatry) works?

If you were to license from a software house proprietary code libraries to use in your own derived product, you would not be able to disclose the source. That is because it isn't yours. The original authors of the code retain the rights over it, regardless if you want to use it in your own product. This amounts to the exact same thing, effectively.

Proprietary software proponents assume the ability to keep the source as an exclusive secret is a divine right.

This is an especially strange assumption when a government-funded body writes any source code ... after all "the people" paid for its development, by what right does the government body then keep it a secret and charge "the people" (over again) for its distribution?

There are a whole load of "semi-religious beliefs" held by proponents of closed-source software, not the least of which is that proprietary interests are believed to have a god-given right to keep knowledge from people and rip them off.

Edited 2009-08-27 10:08 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

Richard Stallman created the concept of Free** Software


No , Free Software was the norm at the start of computer as software was not really considered important.

in not free as in beer but Free as in an open source license that requires derivative work to fall under the same license.


There is no Open Source licensing , Open Source is a method of development ... In Open Source there is no derivative as you always have access to the source code ... It's proprietary that create derivatives and block access to the source.

But instead of giving it a name that accurately describes it like "Forced Open License"


Nobody is forcing anyone to use Free Software or there license ...

he drapes the whole thing in "Freedom" as if the ability to look at the source is a divine right.


It's not just the ability to look at it ...

The shocking thing is how so many people actually buy into it.


What's shocking, is actually the opposite, the belief that creating derivative on many otherone else work , and using open source give you the right to close it for any personnal reasons legally.

It really makes me wonder about theories regarding a religious fanaticism gene.


You jump from software to religion as if they are the same , must be because you don't really undertsand either ...

I don't use my real name because I don't want to test the extremes of foss fanaticism.


I know you want to lie , steal and insult without consequence ...

If you don't like it then tough because part of the fun of the internet is being able to call bs on groups like the fsf without having to worry about personal reprisals.


See, I was right, above ...

The counterpart to your supposed fun is that law where passed that make it illegal to insult , harrased , annoy and steal as an anonymous. Punishable by prison terms. In other words you face more as an anonymous then with using your real name.

It's not personnal , it's about software ...

Reply Parent Score: 2