Proprietary software is abuse

[Lyberta]

You know, that just hit me. Proprietary software IS like..... Proprietary software IS abusive relationship.

You pay to be abused by EULA while Capitalism gaslights you that YOU should be grateful for all the great things you get for your money. That stripping people of their freedom is A Good Thing.

You know how all the racists said that slavery is good for black people? Or that women are too irrational to vote? And what now? Giving right to redistribute and alter software is gonna destroy the world? That proprietary software upholds capitalism and capitalism is the greatest thing ever. And when there are more empty houses than homeless people we gonna argue that it's all overpopulation fault and we need eugenics to save capitalism. Or that there is enough food to feed all starving people but we rather wait for it to spoil and destroy it because giving food for free is bad for capitalism. No seriously, I can give citations.

Why do I see the same rhetoric from racists, misogynists, LGBT-phobes and FOSSphobes. Oh yeah, FOSSphobes, how couldn't I think of that word before?

[Wuzzy]

Heh. Interesting analogy.

But yeah, I agree. IMO proprietary software, or rather, the behavior of its owners is unjust because it's a form of power over their users.

For proprietary software, this power usually is derived from 2 things:

1) Trying to hide how the program really functions, done by not sharing source code, obfuscating code, using EXE packers, etc.
2) Copyright Law

Reverse-engineering is at least a theoretical possibility to defeat point 1. It's possible but not very practical and usually extremely time-consuming.
Point 2 can always be defeated by simply disobeying it, but then you'll have the State as enemy. Yet there are still lots of people sharing files illegally, and it's a battle that can't be won.

From an owner's point of view, the fact that both things can be subverted is clearly a bad thing, it diminishes their power and they know it.

I also know the latest trend are streaming games (Google Stadia for example). This is not done because it's cool. It's done because it gives them even more power. If this succeeds, they will manage to plug those two “holes” and make it very hard to subvert their control over the game. In a streaming-games world, the only chance to “extract” a game would be by some kind of whisleblower or something like that … The owners would have a very tight grip over video games. Scary.
This gives the owners a tremendous amount of power, much worse than with the current system. And it's being pushed heavily. Thankfully, Google Stadia looks like a big failure a complete failure. I hope it's not only because Google did a complete screw-up but also because people are starting to see through the industry BS. I also believe/hope that streaming games won't catch on, at least for now. Mainly because of lack of infrastructure. Streaming games would require an insane amount of traffic, if all gamers started to adopt this.

While I think this threat is unrealistic FOR NOW, we have to keep a close eye on this. The fact that streaming games are being pushed so heavily right now is still concerning. It also speaks volumes about the owner's intentions.

Sadly, our problem as FOSS community is, we are simply not being heard. Most users don't care or don't understand what's at stake.

Maybe, just maybe, if we could explain to the Average Joe how *exactly* he's being abused by proprietary software in a way that even he could understand it, more people would start to take a stand. Today, there are now so many abusive things done by proprietary software that is hard even for zealots like me to keep track of everything.

[Jastiv]

Thankfully, Google Stadia looks like a big failure a complete failure. I hope it's not only because Google did a complete screw-up but also be.

To be realistic about it, trying to stream it all on the server side is going to suck because it just is due to technology, not due to anything google did/did not do.

Explaining free software to ordinary users is a challenge. Sure, eventually something bad happens to almost everyone because of cause of proprietary software, but when a user decides to make the switch, they have to weigh the pain of being abused by proprietary software, against the pain of giving something up to live like a free software monk.

I've been reading this translated book of some of the writings of Martin Luther. He wrote that making public vows like a monk or nun was bad. He said that was so because it wasn't in the bible, and basically because it was making an outward display of piety while not necessarily getting closer to god. He wrote up his stuff when the printing press came out (analogous to us getting the internet) and I'm hoping I can apply some of his insights to the ongoing battle against proprietary software.

You pay to be abused by EULA while Capitalism gaslights you that YOU should be grateful for all the great things you get for your money.

Ironically, Martin Luther also had some essay on why the nobility should oppose the church. I hate to admit it, but proprietary software doesn't do any favors for the top 0.0001% of wealth either. Imagine your smart house and smart car, no way to get the source code, and your enemies hacking it to kill you and your family. Yeah, well, that nightmare scenario isn't something you can protect yourself from just by throwing wealth around without doing something about the prevalence of proprietary software. I just don't think that proprietary software benefits the wealthy either (and of course it doesn't really benefit anyone regardless of income or social class, even the people who make proprietary software, because ultimately everyone uses far more software than they make.)

[freemedia2018]

This is exactly why people hate Microsoft-- Worldwide, Microsoft is a bully and a huge scammer. Not that it's just Microsoft. They are among the worst.

Linus Torvalds had the nerve to say it's because other people are extremists.

Torvalds sides with the abusers. I have no respect for him-- haven't for years. With that said, as it was with Saddam-- the people who replace him will be even worse. But that isn't enough to deserve respect. The man is slimy, a sellout and a liar. Why do people stay in abusive relationships? When they aren't actually stuck, some think they're actually better off. That's marketers for you-- the narcissists that convince people to stay with psychopaths.

You would think that with free software becoming more popular. that the lying and the abuse would stop.

Only it's getting much worse. The abusers have taken over a great deal of the free software ecosystem, and Google is not only teaming up with Microsoft on "OpenTelemetry" but their money makes up more than 10% of FSFE's yearly budget: https://fsfe.org/donate/thankgnus.en.html the abuse is spreading, and most people are just letting the takeover happen.

I'm hoping I can apply some of his insights to the ongoing battle against proprietary software.

I wonder if I will agree, but it definitely sounds interesting. My latest effort is this:

[Lyberta]

As a transgender person and freedom activist, for me proprietary software and transphobia inflict the same psychological and emotional pain, just from different angles. I hate that FSF frames this as an "ethics" issue and sidesteps the psychological harm being done. At one point in life I was cornered by proprietary software and considered suicide as the only mean to escape the pain. That's when I found FSF and kept following them closely but they seem to be stuck in their "first world problem" and generally tone deaf. The latest scandal that made FSF ditch Stallman shows that the whole organization has serious issues.

If we explain the psychological harm aspect and frame this as human rights issue, we are bound to find much more support from other oppressed social groups who know this harm full well.

EDIT: Oh, not to mention such free software gems as "weboob", "GIMP", "GIMPLE", "assword" and others. To paraphrase PhilosophyTube, Is FSF just a bunch of white guys jerking off?

[Wuzzy]

I still think it was a terrible mistake to attack RMS over some comments. He's still a giant. So just because he said something stupid doesn't just undo his past work. At least acknowledge that. I'm also a little shocked by how little information I actually find about the exact backstory behind the resignation, the official statements are all quite nebulous …

Anyway, the movement will obviously still live on, it doesn't need a leader.

But yeah, I think the FSF website isn't all that great. For complete newbies, I think it's a hard topic to understand. Most people hardly really understand software, let alone free software …

What is needed is some website that gets to the point fast, so that everyone could understand it. I think all free-software-related websites do a quite bad job at this.

What I'm also missing is a documention of known abuses by proprietary software and their owners (and how you could defend yourselves). Not for me, of course, for others that don't know them yet. And not just theoretical abuses, real-world abuses that most users can actually identify with in their daily lives.
All with hard, cold evidence that you could easily check for yourselves. Like copy restrictions, your receiver's refusal to fast-forward, that most of your “smart” device's features are locked down, all that stuff.
I think this is very important because we can talk about ethics all day long, but to most people it will sound all very abstract and theoretical, thus difficult to understand and people will conclude that that's not really a problem since it all sounds so theoretical. But we need to show the real world impact in a way that people will understand.

The FSF does that to some extent on the website, but the information is a little scattered and it's very incomplete as well.

Personally, I'm generally no fan of organizations. I just don't like bureaocracy. But that's just me.

Psychological harm by proprietary software … tbh, that's something that has not even crossed my mind. And probably not FSF's as well. Tell me more about it. If you want.

[Lyberta]

Psychological harm by proprietary software … tbh, that's something that has not even crossed my mind. And probably not FSF's as well. Tell me more about it. If you want.

Here's something I've posted on r/opensource. I'm keeping those notes because I eventually want to write a big article why copyright is essentially anti-humane.

Yes, I have never seen copyright inflict physical violence to people but I have suffered enough of psychological and emotional violence myself.

I remember having to beg my parents for weeks just to give me $2,5 to buy a pirated CD of the game and play it. Video games were the only thing that gave me just a bit of relief from absolute insanity of real world. For a brief moment I could just relax and not feel the extreme pain and suicidal thoughts.

But my happiness was locked away behind those damn $2,5. I had to suffer and suffer begging my parents to have mercy and not force me to kill myself. Beg those heartless bastards. And then those retail pirates with heaps of CDs who only give you games for money. $2,5 no less! And that's for just 1 CD. When games started coming on 2 CD they were priced twice as much! What horrible scalpers.

Hey, those people who demand 60 dollars for a game are the ones detached from society.

My childhood was eventually saved by having a CD burner so I could borrow pirated CDs from other people, burn a copy and play it. This is what good people do. They share. And then came much better form of kindness - torrents and The Pirate Bay. People were sharing games for free, not demanding insane prices. There are still good people on the Internet.

Of course, evil proprietary software creators now try to inflict more violence by keeping the server-side portion of the game secret. "Games as a service". Well, we now have 20 years of playable games. If all new games are unplayable child gambling skinner boxes, we can just pirate old games. There are so many to play.

And I didn't even mention FOSS yet! With proprietary software it is very hard to make mods. I had to learn x86 assembly to inject my trainer into the memory of GTA4 to make the game more fun for me. And I used anti-DRM features contributed by other good people. And it broke on Windows 7, it uses different memory manager so DRM was working, was detecting my trainer and closing the game. I spent months of work on that trainer! F that. And damn! I obtained that game legally, paid money just to suffer that DRM. Pirates don't need to suffer from DRM, it's all cracked.

With FOSS you have the source code. No need to learn assembly and bypass DRM. No need to care about architecture. Want to play Xonotic on RISC-V? Sure, some people already ported it.

[freemedia2018]

I still think it was a terrible mistake to attack RMS over some comments.

As do I.

I'm also a little shocked by how little information I actually find about the exact backstory behind the resignation, the official statements are all quite nebulous

That's because it really is a coup. A lot of "us" have a great deal of information that we can't share because it would reveal our sources. I would talk about this stuff more often but (although people have so far been quite tolerant) I don't want to be accused of fanning the flames here-- I cause enough trouble in other places.

This (FGD) is an actual community, not a corporate astroturf platform, but there are people here who could take what I'm saying the wrong way. What's happening at the FSF is corruption-- pure corruption, and it's part of a much, much larger picture that includes Debian, IBM, FSFE, Google-- I'm not just talking about proprietary software (which of course is quite relevant) or systemd (which is relevant but very, very far from the only piece on this chessboard.)

Anyway, the movement will obviously still live on, it doesn't need a leader.

I don't think it's so obvious, but I was trying to make the movement more redundant (federated, decentralised) before this happened. Some of us predicted this. Before Stallman resigned, I wrote a book called "Guarding and Rescuing the FSF Titanic"

1. The FSF isn’t just threatened, it will hit a large iceberg in the future that changes it permanently.

Stallman resigned 29 days later. We had complained about efforts to censor him previously.

But yeah, I think the FSF website isn't all that great. For complete newbies, I think it's a hard topic to understand. Most people hardly really understand software, let alone free software …

Exactly. And that's one of the weaknesses of the FSF's approach.

I'll certainly defend the idea of Freedom being more important than a "development methodology" but I mostly agree with Lyberta on the matter of copyright. I would not be sad for it to be abolished, though I focus on (drastic) reform.

One of the things the FSF has missed is the opportunity to get more people to care about copyright reform-- not everybody understands software but like Lessig, I think the FSF has an opportunity to introduce Free Culture as a related concept. For me this is an important way to get more people to care about freedom.

What is needed is some website that gets to the point fast, so that everyone could understand it. I think all free-software-related websites do a quite bad job at this.

I would be willing to work with you on this. I can help you create a website for that goal. It will be free to copy, so you don't have to rely on the fact that I'm hosting it. It can be a small and simple website.

What I'm also missing is a documention of known abuses by proprietary software and their owners (and how you could defend yourselves).

I work on that every week. We should talk. I don't talk about it as often here as I don't want to be accused of spamming.

Not for me, of course, for others that don't know them yet. :) And not just theoretical abuses, real-world abuses that most users can actually identify with in their daily lives.

Well said.

All with hard, cold evidence that you could easily check for yourselves. Like copy restrictions, your receiver's refusal to fast-forward, that most of your “smart” device's features are locked down, all that stuff.

I hope you realise the evidence of the worst stuff comes gradually.

I think this is very important because we can talk about ethics all day long, but to most people it will sound all very abstract and theoretical, thus difficult to understand and people will conclude that that's not really a problem since it all sounds so theoretical.

I agree, but we need both.

Personally, I'm generally no fan of organizations. I just don't like bureaocracy. But that's just me.

I feel similarly, and my own organisation is forkable. But the whole concept of "freedom labs" is that people can set up their own very quickly and they reduce bureaucracy.

Psychological harm by proprietary software … tbh, that's something that has not even crossed my mind. And probably not FSF's as well. Tell me more about it. If you want.

The LGBTQ community has a concept of things like bi-erasure, of making groups of people invisible. The Wikipedia article says it is "the tendency to ignore, remove, falsify, or reexplain evidence" of those groups, their identities or the lives they lead.

I will leave it to Lyberta to speak for herself of course, but extreme Copyright (the sort we have today) is:

* a threat to information
* a threat to harm people for speech
* control of public information
* which allows not only censorship but information-shaping

Information-shaping is another way of saying corporate campaigns of propaganda-- the media tail wagging the dog.

All of these things are used by companies to control, threaten, censor, mislead and abuse people.

One of the things I really like about Stallman (and others like him) is that they have spent years talking about the ways that companies controlling computing would ultimately lead to companies controlling people's lives.

However, moving from the abstract to be more inclusive of the reality is a good idea.

For example, IBM talks about "diversity" while it uses CCTV footage from the NYPD to create algorithms for law enforcement / government agencies that identify people on camera By Their Race.

That's just a little too close to the "government work" they were doing in the 1940s. IBM should apologise for their role in the Holocaust first, (they never did, and the evidence continues to mount though portions of it are disputed) before lecturing others on "diversity."

[Lyberta]

That's because it really is a coup. A lot of "us" have a great deal of information that we can't share because it would reveal our sources. I would talk about this stuff more often but (although people have so far been quite tolerant) I don't want to be accused of fanning the flames here-- I cause enough trouble in other places.

This (FGD) is an actual community, not a corporate astroturf platform, but there are people here who could take what I'm saying the wrong way. What's happening at the FSF is corruption-- pure corruption, and it's part of a much, much larger picture that includes Debian, IBM, FSFE, Google-- I'm not just talking about proprietary software (which of course is quite relevant) or systemd (which is relevant but very, very far from the only piece on this chessboard.)

This site has a lot of info on that: https://fsfellowship.eu/

There was even more info here, especially during Stallman resignation: https://danielpocock.com/ but it seems the guy has deleted some posts. Maybe Wayback Machine it. Eh, I have some free time, here goes:

https://web.archive.org/web/20191020015 ... sf-censor/
https://web.archive.org/web/20191013010 ... ing-lists/
https://web.archive.org/web/20191016195 ... hypocrisy/
https://web.archive.org/web/20191016195 ... -software/
https://web.archive.org/web/20191013011 ... s-paradox/

One can try Wayback Machine https://fsfellowship.eu/ too.

Anyway, FSF and FSFE take donations and they received a lot from at least Google I think who corrupted people starting in FSFE, spreading quickly to Debian and it's GSoC program, the thing goes deep. This is exactly why Open Source movement was designed. To lie and deceit and to take our freedom. Don't trust Open Source, don't align with Open Source. They are the enemy, I keep repeating that.

...But, it turns out, organizations that exist legally and have people with legal names attached to it are an easy target. We must not repeat that mistake. Anti-copyright movement must stay anonymous, we must all be those hoodie wearing Antifa street soldiers who have no name and no "legal" (as in government-racket-sponsored) way to attack us.

[freemedia2018]

This site has a lot of info on that: https://fsfellowship.eu/

I've read the whole mailing list archive. The latest email is from me: https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/pipermail ... 00697.html

What I've said about the FSFE debacle is that it lends credence to the idea of how much has gone wrong with the original FSF. Did you know that it's in dispute whether the FSF is even comfortable with FSFE taking donations under the name "Free Software Foundation?" Also that FSFE hosts FSFLA's server. I believe that is being reconsidered, but it could be the situation for a while.

[Lyberta]

What I've said about the FSFE debacle is that it lends credence to the idea of how much has gone wrong with the original FSF. Did you know that it's in dispute whether the FSF is even comfortable with FSFE taking donations under the name "Free Software Foundation?" Also that FSFE hosts FSFLA's server. I believe that is being reconsidered, but it could be the situation for a while.

Yes, for me I have put FSF, FSFE and Debian on the list of organization not to be trusted.

[freemedia2018]

Yes, for me I have put FSF, FSFE and Debian on the list of organization not to be trusted.

Me too. Though you and I have slightly different reasons for doing so. At any rate, we reach a similar conclusion. And my goal is to figure out what to do with the rest of this federation: http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Fr ... Federation

Because these are all free software organisations.

The first goal is to list ALL of them.

The second goal is to help people find the ones they need to support most (I don't trust SFC myself. They're about as done for me as FSFE is for both of us.)

The third goal is to keep track of the efforts by corporations to take over these organisations.

The fourth is to encourage new organisations-- led by people, not corporate bribes like Google bribing FSFE.

And the fifth and most important of these goals is to reboot the free software movement, with people, not corporations, at the helm. We can't MAKE people do what WE want. But we can still lead a people-oriented free software movement, if that's what it takes to defeat this corporate takeover. And I'm making certain that it isn't a single-point-of-failure like the FSF. Perhaps we can reclaim the Free Software Foundation-- but even if we can't, we can certainly have a Free Software Fleet of our own.

[Evropi]

Without giving specifics, a major project I have been involved with was hurt by a serious GPL violation. Not a single one of these organisations replied to emails. That includes the FSF, FSFE and SFC (which to be fair, does say upfront they only give advice to people who sign on with them, but still).

To hell with all of them and the false hopes they give to real, useful and freedom-respecting projects.

For my part, I think it's more useful to directly support developers or individual software projects. There are a few exceptions that need the legal umbrella they offer. On the other hand, the GNU's (and more specifically, RMS's) continued involvement in Emacs is probably the thing that has stalled its progress the most in the last 10 years.

[freemedia2018]

On the other hand, the GNU's (and more specifically, RMS's) continued involvement in Emacs is probably the thing that has stalled its progress the most in the last 10 years.

I'm well aware of the coup against both Stallman and the FSF, which is why I'm willing to speak in strong words about the latter. The FSF today is not the "real" FSF. But people who don't know what I mean by that will simply think I'm a zealot, or sentimental. I'm simply saying they have abandoned what they stand for-- they give only lip service.

With that said, I'm interested in what ways Stallman has hurt the progress of Emacs. It's true that I'm sceptical-- he created Emacs. What's so great that he's preventing?

But I don't care about Emacs, I care about the coup. Since I still think of wrenching of Emacs out of its creator's hands (it can be forked, but obviously nobody wants that-- they want to control the main version I guess) is more of an effect than a cause, I have yet to grow sentimental about it.

If I were going to create a text editor I would probably use Javascript, despite not liking Javascript very much. I would rather do that than lean on Emacs. So tell me before I even care, satisfy my curiosity-- I can promise you I'm as curious as I say I am. What aspect(s) of Emacs does Stallman hurt, really? And please don't lock this thread, anybody. I really do want to know. Emacs isn't something I'm prepared to argue about. But I have to ask.

[Lyberta]

Relying on government - your biggest enemy - to protect you is foolish. GPL and other licenses rely on lawyers and governments so they are doomed from the start.

I think I will simply refuse to specify the license of my works so for people who respect copyright this will be "all rights reserved" and honestly they can go screw themselves. We don't need copyright, lawyers and governments where we're going.

[freemedia2018]

Relying on government - your biggest enemy - to protect you is foolish. GPL and other licenses rely on lawyers and governments so they are doomed from the start.

I put most of my work under CC0, which alleviates it of a license in most countries. I'm really not content to put a little heart on it or what amounts to a homemade license. That would just play into the hands of companies like Microsoft.

I have recently put a new project under GPL3. If I put my code under CC0, which is GPL-compatible and compatible with basically everything in the world, lots of people are unhappy with that. If I put it under GPL, other people are unhappy with that. You just can't please people. Somebody is always unhappy. I have to decide who I want to please more, and why I have the preference.

[Evropi]

On the other hand, the GNU's (and more specifically, RMS's) continued involvement in Emacs is probably the thing that has stalled its progress the most in the last 10 years.

I'm well aware of the coup against both Stallman and the FSF, which is why I'm willing to speak in strong words about the latter. The FSF today is not the "real" FSF. But people who don't know what I mean by that will simply think I'm a zealot, or sentimental. I'm simply saying they have abandoned what they stand for-- they give only lip service.

With that said, I'm interested in what ways Stallman has hurt the progress of Emacs. It's true that I'm sceptical-- he created Emacs. What's so great that he's preventing?

But I don't care about Emacs, I care about the coup. Since I still think of wrenching of Emacs out of its creator's hands (it can be forked, but obviously nobody wants that-- they want to control the main version I guess) is more of an effect than a cause, I have yet to grow sentimental about it.

If I were going to create a text editor I would probably use Javascript, despite not liking Javascript very much. I would rather do that than lean on Emacs. So tell me before I even care, satisfy my curiosity-- I can promise you I'm as curious as I say I am. What aspect(s) of Emacs does Stallman hurt, really? And please don't lock this thread, anybody. I really do want to know. Emacs isn't something I'm prepared to argue about. But I have to ask.

A massive amount, his style and position, even after he passed over leadership to John Wiegley (who is a much better project leader), meant immense frustrations for contributors and the users it affects. He likes to end conversations with 'this conversation is over' or 'I have spoken' and dropping his position, like he's some omniscient deity. No-one dares question it but everyone whines about it, because they know RMS doesn't use the web almost ever, yet all they can do is bitch and moan. Thankfully, Emacs is super extensible.

He's also blind as to how people actually use Emacs. Like not knowing magit exists. Or that there's another repository, MELPA, which is used way more than the GNU's one and its awful packaging policies, so let's write replacements for all those packages to ensure the copyright is ours (even though they're free!).

Or wanting Emacs to become a word processor in the 2010s, while everyone on the mailing list was politely telling him, out of touch as his, that it's not in the project's interests whatsoever.

Xah Lee (who is admittedly a notorious character) has documented a number of these over the years, just scroll to the bottom of one of them like this. Not all of them are there. RMS has barely written code but dictated for ages what people should and shouldn't do, like denying support for LLDB entirely because people might use it over the GNU toolchain, boo hoo (that one is outside Xah's site, just came to mind but there's loads more).

He's a sad character who never got over the fact people moved on from GNU software, because it didn't always cut the mustard. Linux taking over Hurd being the prime example, so there's a whiney screed-FAQ of homeric proportions (and endless amounts of other articles) that I'd be embarrassed if I hosted on an organisation's site, but hey, it's RMS so we need to do what he says. And just to add - he didn't invent Emacs. I give him a lot of credit for expanding it and getting it into real use, and the fact it's continued being developed. It's fun reading how amazingly cutting edge it was back display-wise when it was introduced. Emacs has really been the last software project he's been involved with, as leader only, and it's always awkward when he puts his 2 cents into the mailing list, or should I say, tell developers who've put effort in what to do while totally uninformed and hardly ever reading the history.

I could rant for a while but I'll stop as I don't want this to be a character assassination. I know he won't read this, but if he did, I hope he took it to heart and realised that he's been a liability. There's a reason so many projects have been moving away from GNU over the years, like GnuTLS (even Nano quit for a while) because of the top-down idiosyncracies that go beyond its mission and into outdated and bad technical advice. I hope this helps as a primer for why people think RMS sabotages their stuff, especially if they've followed Emacs development.

It's an amazing program, and the most interesting software I have ever used from a UX standpoint. I and many others firmly believe that RMS stepping down more and more is the greatest boon it's had. FWIW, this isn't related to his statements on Epstein, he should have been kicked out a long time ago for having zero leadership abilities and being that manager at your job that got there because he was good 30 years ago, but useless and institutional legacy today.

[Lyberta]

It's an amazing program, and the most interesting software I have ever used from a UX standpoint. I and many others firmly believe that RMS stepping down more and more is the greatest boon it's had. FWIW, this isn't related to his statements on Epstein, he should have been kicked out a long time ago for having zero leadership abilities and being that manager at your job that got there because he was good 30 years ago, but useless and institutional legacy today.

100% agree.

[freemedia2018]

I could rant for a while but I'll stop as I don't want this to be a character assassination.

Fair enough. Given my request and your post that led to my request, I wasn't expecting you to endorse him. Thanks for explaining.

[Jastiv]

Relying on government - your biggest enemy - to protect you is foolish. GPL and other licenses rely on lawyers and governments so they are doomed from the start.

I think I will simply refuse to specify the license of my works so for people who respect copyright this will be "all rights reserved" and honestly they can go screw themselves. We don't need copyright, lawyers and governments where we're going.

GPL was written by lawyers, not government. Law, software, money, all of it is fake stuff people made up, but it effects things in the real world just like imaginary numbers effect real numbers.
If you get rid of government, basically a monopoly on violence, you just get gangs, and gang violence,and that isn't really an improvement.
If you want to make real progress towards universal free software, it is necessary to collaborate with people who have different value systems from you, just because you chose to ignore copyright, doesn't mean others can or will choose to do so.

[Lyberta]

If you get rid of government, basically a monopoly on violence, you just get gangs, and gang violence,and that isn't really an improvement.

It's a big improvement. You can kill gangs with firearms but to kill governments you need nuclear weapons at least.

If you want to make real progress towards universal free software, it is necessary to collaborate with people who have different value systems from you, just because you chose to ignore copyright, doesn't mean others can or will choose to do so.

If you start collaborating, next thing you know you take a bribe ("donation") from Google and your entire organization and several others are ideologically destroyed.

[freemedia2018]

If you start collaborating, next thing you know you take a bribe ("donation") from Google and your entire organization and several others are ideologically destroyed.

You'd laugh Lyberta, today I found honestly the biggest horse**** article I've ever read.

On Vox (which is in /etc/hosts so I never accidentally visit it) they're saying that the Constitution is "anti-democratic" because it favours "small states over big states"-- so they're implying basically that in order to be "democratic" voters need to have (increasingly exploitable and centralised and corruptable) influence over EVERYTHING, EVERYWHERE! Let's all vote on what people do on the other side of the world-- I'm sure that will result in very "informed decisions" and a "better democracy".

*double facepalm*

You and I, I think, would favour smaller organisations that are less worth bribing. One might think "smaller org, easier to bribe." But larger org = bigger attack surface. Compare it to data centres-- if you put all the data in one big company infrastructure, or rather the more they do this, the larger the incentive for people to attack it. This has shown to be demonstrably true time and time again. Smaller orgs are less worth bribing-- distributed and decentralised orgs should be harder to bribe and corrupt. Silly (stupid) Vox, unbelievable. There's just no democracy like a global government, eh?

[Jastiv]

The American Founding fathers were against mob rule and direct democracy for good reason. Good thing we have a republic instead or things would be worse, much worse.

[Lyberta]

You and I, I think, would favour smaller organisations that are less worth bribing. One might think "smaller org, easier to bribe." But larger org = bigger attack surface. Compare it to data centres-- if you put all the data in one big company infrastructure, or rather the more they do this, the larger the incentive for people to attack it. This has shown to be demonstrably true time and time again. Smaller orgs are less worth bribing-- distributed and decentralised orgs should be harder to bribe and corrupt. Silly (stupid) Vox, unbelievable. There's just no democracy like a global government, eh?

I'm for system where there are failsafes again bribery, if a person gets bribed, they get replaced. This requires basically every individual to be its own organization. Google managed to destroy Debian, FSFE and FSF with one blow because everything was so centralized, people had legal names and bank accounts.

[Technopeasant]

Silly (stupid) Vox, unbelievable. There's just no democracy like a global government, eh?

Without reading the article I can not be sure, but I suspect what they meant was say how Trump won the presidency by winning less populous states like Wisconsin while Clinton won more populous ones like California, and not suggesting that larger organizations are better than smaller ones. In a direct presidential election, like in France, Clinton would have won as it was based on the popular vote and not distributed electoral colleges. But again, I have not read the article. I doubt they meant nation states, as the U.S. Constitution does not regulate that.