[Raion]

So I've really delved over the last few weeks in my spare time into the psyche of RMS, and I have basically summed up what the GPL and his philosophies stem from:

Sour grapes.

He developed an unhealthy resentment of proprietary software and sought to use a license that by its very nature is antagonistic towards proprietary software. This, and I touched on this when I ran a blog, really parallels the sour grapes Marx had as a young man developing his philosophy.

The idea that you have to hate the success of other people, and the fact they won't share their works with you on your terms, forms the undercurrent of that man's psyche. If he were born today, he'd probably be considered autistic; though I myself am not a psychiatrist and can't diagnose him, moreover I hate when people armchair online. I think it's shitty. He has posited it himself, however: https://www.oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ch05.html

Some may accuse my dislike of the GPL and its monoculture as "sour grapes". I'd respectfully counter that rather, I don't approve of how it formed a toxic dichotomy. Sure, if I want a compiler on x86 or a terminal multiplexer, or even a build system I have choices galore. But games? All the major FOSS engines are GPL. Video players? GPL. Music players? GPL. It's still very much a monoculture they created and in terms of eliminating proprietary software, I think it's been virtually unsuccessful, and even harmful to the larger open source community. It took years for the BSD, MIT, Apache, Mozilla Public and CDDL to catch on for users.

My complaints are that I'm either forced to choose between corporate Windows or macOS, or the "Free" GNU/Linux and its ecosystem, or I could radically enforce my own principles and barely, just barely, have a GPL-free, open source desktop OS. Barely. I think it's a crying shame. The reason I am in the camp I am is because I believe freedom can't be had through coercion or trying to antagonize copyright or proprietary software. Rather, I think it's more productive to work with it, and perhaps over time we can eventually reduce the length of time for IPs like software to be protected. I.e. if it were me, I'd say treat it similar to patents, except add a usage clause like trademarks have. But I certainly don't see removing proprietary software as productive.

[lunatic]

very well. As far as I heard there is a lot of work to do in the BSD community.
Make NetBSD/sgimips a Tier1 port again, or else communism wins...

[Raion]

very well. As far as I heard there is a lot of work to do in the BSD community.
Make NetBSD/sgimips a Tier1 port again, or else communism wins...

I suppose this is an attempt to make a joke?

Anyways, for SGI hardware I'll never run anything but IRIX on them; there's no real point. You have an expensive, slower than most system, and big-endian distributions usually have way inferior hardware support (i.e. graphics drivers)

[lunatic]

Yes, it's a joke, and you should maybe learn to laugh sometimes, because this is really not as serious as you say it is.

So Stallman is a bit strange. Turns out many people in this business are...
Before GNU you had commercial UNIX and BSD's attempt at "something". Remember that BSD being really free only got sorted out with 4.4BSD lite. Now you have GNU/Linux, something that you describe as both "monoculture" and "virtually unsuccessful". But you also have actually working BSD and open source Solaris. There is really no oppression and no coercion going on there.

You want to know why common users jumped onto Linux rather than BSD? Get yourself a 386 PC and install 386BSD or NetBSD-0.9 and see what you can do. Then, get a VAX. Not an emulator, but a real VAX. Also make sure it's a real Q-Bus machine. Make it run the oldest NetBSD you can get (1.2 or 1.3 might work for something like a MicroVAX II). And just compare. This is a very geeky research project deep into the soul of Unix. This is not a joke. Then, when you have done that, get one of the older Linux distributions from 1994 and install it on your 386.

[Raion]

Yes, it's a joke, and you should maybe learn to laugh sometimes, because this is really not as serious as you say it is.

Sarcasm really doesn't translate well over the net, so I avoid it. It's too tough to figure out if people are honestly being serious or not.

So Stallman is a bit strange. Turns out many people in this business are...

I suppose it's based on your perspective. For me, I don't care about Stallman's strange beliefs or the scandals seeking to cancel him; it's all fluff IMHO. But eccentricity in your beliefs, especially radical ones, can have wide-ranging consequences for people unaffected. That is what I'm referencing.

Before GNU you had commercial UNIX and BSD's attempt at "something". Remember that BSD being really free only got sorted out with 4.4BSD lite.

Also, the lawsuits from AT&T. I know what's coming next, and all I have to say on GNU/Linux or the whole Linux v. BSD v. whatever debates is that it's off-topic to this discussion. This is not a debate of technical superiority or who prefers what horse when they ride on a track. That's beside the point here.

Now you have GNU/Linux, something that you describe as both "monoculture" and "virtually unsuccessful".

Maybe I didn't make myself clear or you unintentionally 's/GNU\ et\ \/GPL/Linux/g' into my post for some godsforsaken reason, but that's not what I said:

"Sure, if I want a compiler on x86 or a terminal multiplexer, or even a build system I have choices galore. But games? All the major FOSS engines are GPL. Video players? GPL. Music players? GPL. It's still very much a monoculture they created and in terms of eliminating proprietary software, I think it's been virtually unsuccessful, and even harmful to the larger open source community. It took years for the BSD, MIT, Apache, Mozilla Public and CDDL to catch on for users."

Which perfectly ties into my next point:

But you also have actually working BSD and open source Solaris. There is really no oppression and no coercion going on there.

And if you read what I said again, I'm saying yes, the basic tools are not a monoculture, but the larger ecosystem is. Countless GPL-licensed games out there, if you wanna be a stickler on licenses (I'm not, as they're IMHO not core to the system experience, but I'm making a point) but not many BSD or LGPL or whatever. Name me the number of desktop environments that are GPL? You'll get to name just a few, and most are coded specifically for GNU/Linux, which IMHO disqualifies them. What about Window managers? Yes, there's a decent number of BSD/MIT, but countless more that are GPL. What about filesystems? Word processors? Photo tools? Webcam utilities? Chat software?

You want to know why common users jumped onto Linux rather than BSD? Get yourself a 386 PC and install 386BSD or NetBSD-0.9 and see what you can do. Then, get a VAX. Not an emulator, but a real VAX. Also make sure it's a real Q-Bus machine. Make it run the oldest NetBSD you can get (1.2 or 1.3 might work for something like a MicroVAX II). And just compare. This is a very geeky research project deep into the soul of Unix. This is not a joke. Then, when you have done that, get one of the older Linux distributions from 1994 and install it on your 386.

I appreciate that you're making a point like this, I really do, but it's out of the scope of the discussion. We're not arguing technical superiority. By the 90s, when the Linux kernel was beginning to take shape there wasn't even a monoculture on Wintel quite yet. A lot of people stubbornly stuck to their Amigas, Ataris etc. At least in the US, I remember when I was 2-3 years old at going to my uncle's girlfriend's house and she had an Atari TT; and I famously had a 3000UX growing up for a handful of years (We had x86 PCs too, just saying) And those who bought x86 didn't do it except for Windows or DOS, usually. GNU/Linux didn't really jump ship anyone other than the college students and professors who enjoyed those big old VAXen at university and wanted to get something more obscure for themselves; The defecting to the GNU/Linux off commercial UNIX or BSD (especially, say BSD/i) was later, in the late 90s at least, and probably due to the fact the BSDs were not in the best shape having fended off lawsuits and such. I'm not here arguing about GNU/Linux itself.

Rather, I wanted to touch on how we haven't really truly democratized anything beyond the bare basics. I do intend to change that, but after all Rome wasn't built in a day. I expect the situation to persist for at least another decade or more, even if something nouveau comes out of it all it's going to take time for that to equalize into the markets.

[lunatic]

Sarcasm really doesn't translate well over the net, so I avoid it. It's too tough to figure out if people are honestly being serious or not.

As I said: I really like NetBSD and I think it's better to get work done than complaining about how other people spend their free time.

I suppose it's based on your perspective. For me, I don't care about Stallman's strange beliefs or the scandals seeking to cancel him; it's all fluff IMHO. But eccentricity in your beliefs, especially radical ones, can have wide-ranging consequences for people unaffected. That is what I'm referencing.

Funny that you of all people say that.
As far as I am concerned there are so many weird people in the IT industry that I won't defend one without restriction. I guess most people recognized that for example Linus Torvalds or Theo de Raadt were sometimes difficult, but they still chose to participate in their projects and work. That's the core of what I meant. If you don't like the guy or the philosophy of the project, you don't have to participate. It's the developers' free choice.

And if you read what I said again, I'm saying yes, the basic tools are not a monoculture, but the larger ecosystem is. Countless GPL-licensed games out there, if you wanna be a stickler on licenses (I'm not, as they're IMHO not core to the system experience, but I'm making a point) but not many BSD or LGPL or whatever. Name me the number of desktop environments that are GPL? You'll get to name just a few, and most are coded specifically for GNU/Linux, which IMHO disqualifies them. What about Window managers? Yes, there's a decent number of BSD/MIT, but countless more that are GPL. What about filesystems? Word processors? Photo tools? Webcam utilities? Chat software?

Well, then go on and write new software. If you think the world needs more BSD licensed games or a BSD licensed desktop environments go on and create that. If enough people like it, they will join you.

I appreciate that you're making a point like this, I really do, but it's out of the scope of the discussion.

It is absolutely not, because when you try this path, you will understand the philosophy and the experience behind this. A lot of BSD for a long time was about this experience like "It's like a VAX, but I have it at home and it's all mine!". GNU/Linux added something to that and this has inspired people to participate, people who might have thought that a VAX is rather boring. People chose to participate. You can't even blame it on the industry, because as you already said, GNU is anti-proprietary-software. If given the choice, corporations would avoid GNU like the devil avoids going to church.

Rather, I wanted to touch on how we haven't really truly democratized anything beyond the bare basics. I do intend to change that, but after all Rome wasn't built in a day. I expect the situation to persist for at least another decade or more, even if something nouveau comes out of it all it's going to take time for that to equalize into the markets.

I don't see democracy anywhere. Nobody is voting on the addition of a device driver or the next version of an application. It's all pure anarchy. If you don't like the way it's going, you can fork and go on as you wish. You just have to attract enough followers or do the work on your own. IT history tells us that a combination of both seems to be required for a project to work in the long run. The GPL does not guarantee a bill of rights that focuses on you as a person. It protects freedom of code, not freedom of people. Substantial discussion arose when the GPL wanted to actually add something about freedom of people. For example GPL 3 added restrictions on Tivoization. Is it still GPL acceptable when you put GPL licensed software in a proprietary box that the end user cannot modify? As you may have read, Linus opted to use GPL v2 and not to go to GPL v3. The discussion is ongoing, but in the end, much of this discussion might be academic. At some point, somebody has to put in the work and actually write software. Upon its release, somebody can decide on the license.

[Raion]

Funny that you of all people say that.
As far as I am concerned there are so many weird people in the IT industry that I won't defend one without restriction. I guess most people recognized that for example Linus Torvalds or Theo de Raadt were sometimes difficult, but they still chose to participate in their projects and work. That's the core of what I meant. If you don't like the guy or the philosophy of the project, you don't have to participate. It's the developers' free choice.

I feel that I have made ethical choices for the community. I'm certainly not stellar in all of my performances or choices, but I've done my best to ensure IRIX doesn't end up in the bin of "obscure trash." If nothing else, I've stuck to my convictions, and that's better than being a fool.

As far as your point on developers free choices, this is true, but I was primarily stating that RMS' radicalism has infected the very core of open source software. I've decided, overall, I dislike the "free as in freedom" as I don't consider the GPL preserving freedom.

Well, then go on and write new software. If you think the world needs more BSD licensed games or a BSD licensed desktop environments go on and create that. If enough people like it, they will join you.

I think this is an example of unhelpfulness to the extreme when you're telling someone unqualified how something has to be. I have worked to become better, but it's not a matter of "Git gud" for many people. It takes time and experience, and starting on a massive monolith of a project can be daunting. I've bitten off more than I can chew before, it ain't fun.

I used to work at a mechanic shop, and we never told a customer unsatisfied with the procedure that "If you don't like how much it costs, do it yourself." that's an easy way to piss someone off. In my case, I even developed a workaround to get a damn headlight in a 2011 BMW that didn't involve taking everything off the front.

It is absolutely not, because when you try this path, you will understand the philosophy and the experience behind this. A lot of BSD for a long time was about this experience like "It's like a VAX, but I have it at home and it's all mine!". GNU/Linux added something to that and this has inspired people to participate, people who might have thought that a VAX is rather boring. People chose to participate. You can't even blame it on the industry, because as you already said, GNU is anti-proprietary-software. If given the choice, corporations would avoid GNU like the devil avoids going to church.

Actually, we can, because ORACLE, IBM, SGI, HPE, and others have made conscious decisions to not adapt to the markets. ORACLE is content to do the bare minimum of effort and squander the 30+ years of Solaris that Sun worked so hard on.

I don't see democracy anywhere. Nobody is voting on the addition of a device driver or the next version of an application. It's all pure anarchy. If you don't like the way it's going, you can fork and go on as you wish. You just have to attract enough followers or do the work on your own. IT history tells us that a combination of both seems to be required for a project to work in the long run. The GPL does not guarantee a bill of rights that focuses on you as a person. It protects freedom of code, not freedom of people. Substantial discussion arose when the GPL wanted to actually add something about freedom of people. For example GPL 3 added restrictions on Tivoization. Is it still GPL acceptable when you put GPL licensed software in a proprietary box that the end user cannot modify? As you may have read, Linus opted to use GPL v2 and not to go to GPL v3. The discussion is ongoing, but in the end, much of this discussion might be academic. At some point, somebody has to put in the work and actually write software. Upon its release, somebody can decide on the license.

Democratization refers to choice, and it's self-referential towards "voter choice." as in, you have multiple options.

Outside of the base components, there's little choice. I can do my best to make an impact, but one man cannot build Rome, and certainly Iulius Caesar wasn't born a great general, it took years of refinement to get to where he was recognized. That's moreorless the same. I wish I was born a badass like Christopher Lee, but many of us aren't as lucky as him to have lived such a storied life.

Yes, the GPL is collectivist. As an anti-collectivist, that is antithetical to my morals and principles.

But yeah, I'm glad Linus had the foresight to not adopt the v3, as of yet. If he does, he'll likely accelerate the speed at which companies move to alternatives.

[lunatic]

I think this is an example of unhelpfulness to the extreme when you're telling someone unqualified how something has to be. I have worked to become better, but it's not a matter of "Git gud" for many people. It takes time and experience, and starting on a massive monolith of a project can be daunting. I've bitten off more than I can chew before, it ain't fun.

I used to work at a mechanic shop, and we never told a customer unsatisfied with the procedure that "If you don't like how much it costs, do it yourself." that's an easy way to piss someone off. In my case, I even developed a workaround to get a damn headlight in a 2011 BMW that didn't involve taking everything off the front.

The main difference is that the open source community doesn't provide you with a service where they charge you money for. Most people do it just for fun, regardless of your decision to use or not use the software. They don't do it, because you like it, but because they like it. Even the BSD license is pretty explicit about that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses

Democratization refers to choice, and it's self-referential towards "voter choice." as in, you have multiple options.

Outside of the base components, there's little choice. I can do my best to make an impact, but one man cannot build Rome, and certainly Iulius Caesar wasn't born a great general, it took years of refinement to get to where he was recognized. That's moreorless the same. I wish I was born a badass like Christopher Lee, but many of us aren't as lucky as him to have lived such a storied life.

With some things, you don't have a choice, yes.

[Raion]

The main difference is that the open source community doesn't provide you with a service where they charge you money for. Most people do it just for fun, regardless of your decision to use or not use the software. They don't do it, because you like it, but because they like it. Even the BSD license is pretty explicit about that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses

The manner in which the open source community operated for a good 10-20 years, with few exceptions (i.e. the authors of ncurses, or the BSDs, or legacy projects that continued into the modern day like XFree86 (now Xorg) the GPL became synonymous with FOSS licensing, and nobody stopped to consider what inserting a multi page document into their source code now does. The worst thing about this, IMHO, is the millions of abandoned projects that are out there that you would have to essentially rewrite in their entirety to relicense. I've certainly managed to score a **few** former devs with relicensing. A few declined due to "lack of time". And most just never respond, likely because they disappeared from the net without a trace.

My purpose in dissecting this and holding the viewpoints I do isn't some puritanical manner of trying to destroy GNU, the GPL etc. It's something that's been characterized of me, and besides me joking about it, that's never been my intent. Rather, I have always intended to assemble people who oppose the ideals of GNU and the GPL, and work towards filling the necessary niches. For me, that has meant going on a journey to become good enough to lead people, as I am currently unworthy of that goal.

[jwhat]

Hi Raion & Co,

simple fact:

- Richard Stallman, through GNU, has done more for the software development community than probably any other single person.
- Others is this area are Linus Torvalds with Linux and git and followed by the BSD initiative (and its settlement with AT&T) and Tim Berners-Lee.

These have completely transformed the IT (software) landscape.

In all cases they did this by making what they created available to all and sundry.

This increased the pool of people who could contribute.
The result was a huge explosion of creative engineering endeavours.
It made it possible for anyone to contribute by lowering the cost of entry (and I know that "free software" does not mean no $$, but economic outcome has been to lower the cost).

Let's not get too carried away with blind ideology (do people really believe that GNU is some sort of sinister communist plot ??!!!) and think about the basic and practical benefits this has been to so many people around the world.

Education and opportunity are the single most important things what "we" (as a society) can do to create a better world for future generations and the broader development of society.

We do not need "strong leaders" (ie political leaders in each of recent USA, China, Russian, Middle East and others), we need people to have freedom of choice and self determination (without need to take up arms and sacrifice their lives !!).

SGI had a chance to make IRIX code available many years ago and they choose not to (please don't talk about AT&T burden, as the original UNIX source code was made available when it was purchased by Caldera) and in fact "shredded" lots of accumulated knowledge and engineering assets, out of commercial self interest. This could never happen if the material had been made available for open contribution.

Cheers from Oz,

jwhat/John.