/tech/ - Technology

No, we already have free aka libre software which goes a lot further and is far more well established in protecting the 3 freedoms of software than this.

He's just a little porky mad that the Apple is fucking up the BSD cuck license by simply poaching the devs for themselves.
He realizes that devs working completely for free while corps pay jack shit AND keep all the new code they build on open sauce software 100% proprietary is not sustainable and wants some kind of wage or royalty system so that open source software doesn't completely die.
By his weak ass tons I can tell he doesn't mean any real profit sharing, just enough crumbs to keep these devs going.
He doesn't support libre software because corps can't own that outright.
He's a dumbass third way welp that sees the writing on the wall but still fucking refuses to give open source devs any real cash even though multi billion dollar businesses rely on it.
Apple is going to fucking kill Fedora and BSD and this guy knows it.

><Perens argues that the GPL isn't enough. "The GPL is designed not as a contract but as a license. What Richard Stallman was thinking was he didn't want to take away anyone's rights. He only wanted to grant rights. So it's not a contract. It's a license. Well, we can't do that anymore. We need enforceable contract terms."
What in the FUCK is he talking about. A license is a contract. I guess he means that there's no contract for development of open source software. Yeah no shit, there's no contract because there's no money changing hands. You can't have a contract without getting something in return.
I am absolutely confounded on how he's blaming Stallman for that. Stsllman wanted to keep the work of devs from being used for free to build more sophisticated software because he knew just making the code open would just lead to companies using it without giving anything back until the code base died which is exactly what's happening with BSD.
With libre software you pay in code or money. But these corps want it both ways, they want all the free work and private property rights to anything they build on top of.
I have no idea what possessed grey beards to toil under the BSD cuck license but they are a dying breed. No one wants to see their code used as foundation to build a billion dollar company while they get nothing.

>>12832
*I guess he means that there's no contract for continued development of open source software

>>12831
>Apple is fucking up the BSD cuck license by simply poaching the devs for themselves.
what's this all about? first time I'm hearing about this.

>Apple is going to fucking kill Fedora and BSD and this guy knows it.
how is Apple gonna kill Fedora when the only thing that could kill it is the fucking IBM?

>>12830
>in protecting the 3 freedoms
you mean 4 ?

Freedom 0: run the program as you wish, for any purpose.
Freedom 1: study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
Freedom 2: redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor.
Freedom 3: distribute copies of your modified versions to others. By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

>>12832
>A license is a contract.
I suck at legalese, so take this with a grain of salt, a license is not the same as a contract.
The main difference is that a contract requires active consent like signing a paper, and that changes a bunch of "legal equations".

>>12831
>some kind of wage or royalty system so that
>BSD cuck license
>doesn't completely die.
because
>multi billion dollar businesses
>is going to fucking kill Fedora and BSD
So this is about so called "permissive open source" software. My guess is that the libre side of free software is more correct, but if the permissive side of free software is trying to self improve, they should go for it. I'm under the impression that this is leading towards a revenue sharing clause being added. I have no opinion about whether this could take off or lead to desirable results. Can't hurt to try tho ?

>>12830
>we already have free aka libre software which goes a lot further
The point of the GPL is to keep open source code open.

The point of this new thing is more like "I'm too lazy/incompetent to build a business on this code I wrote but if somebody else figures out how to make money with it then I want a cut of your profits". It's the software equivalent of being a landlord essentially.

>>12832
>I have no idea what possessed grey beards to toil under the BSD cuck license
Dude you're the one who thinks that under communism everyone will voluntarily work for free.

>>12839
>The point of the GPL is to keep open source code open.
I agree with that.

>The point of this new thing is the software equivalent of being a landlord.
You're not wrong, but open landlord software might still be better than proprietary software. Assuming they publish sources, allow libre forking/redistribution, as well as make it free for non-commercial use. If people choose to publish under an open landlord software license over a proprietary license, that might still count as a win.

>Dude you're the one who thinks that under communism everyone will voluntarily work for free.
I'm not that dude, and i don't disagree with you, but i would like to add nuance. In higher stage socialism when it's basically impossible to suffer any unmet material needs. People will work towards self-realization goals. Star trek got that part mostly correct.

I am very much looking forward to the day when there no longer exist any humans willing to take people like Bruce Perens and Eric Raymond seriously.

>>12839
>Dude you're the one who thinks that under communism everyone will voluntarily work for free.
<Implying not paying anything to the actively exploited proles isn't the ideal state of production for the leading class of capitalist class system
kys

Not even gonna ask why would you do anything only if you get something in return. It's not like you've always lived under constant shortages of goods anyway, is it?

>>12885
>Implying not paying anything to the actively exploited proles isn't the ideal state of production for the leading class of capitalist class system
Is that supposed to be english?

>kys
Adding a communist flag to your post doesn't give you a license to be a shitty person.