FSF site is okay, but isn’t fair to refer just to this, there are also Stallman interviews and wikis. Because what I am saying is most about Stallman rather about FSF; for me FSF and Stallman is one and the same (I am just giving the credits!).

Well, it was my mistake to bring up this topic, first because as you said I don’t know much about, and secondly because these discussions are endless.

Sorry!

Some quotes:

«GNOME is Free Software:», not ‘open source’ but FREE Software.

«Freedom and community go hand in hand in GNOME. The project’s software is free to download, modify and redistribute; its communication channels and development infrastructure are visible to all. It is this freedom and openness that enables the GNOME community to exist, by allowing new contributors to take part and enabling companies to collaborate in the production of mutually beneficial technologies. GNOME is proud to be a part of the GNU Project.», and they (GNOME people) link to http://www.gnu.org/

Please, I have to go right now, but you must at least understand that if this website is about GNOME you can’t be unaware of the GNOME’s philosophy itself.

Saludos

*oh, and please, study some history, really, you clearly don’t know what are you talking about when mixing stuff of USSR and China

I don’t have time right now, but you certainly need to read, study and learn a lot of stuff (and stop denying, by the way).

Just a couple of comments above another guy gives a good number of “examples that proprietary software harms the open” and the freedom of users and communities. Are you forgetting or just don’t want it to get it?, http://worldofgnome.org/trisquel-gnu-linux-the-most-free-gnome-distro/#comment-645142892

Again: Open Source is NOT what I’m talking about, I’m talking about Free Software (as in Freedom), take a look please, and try to understand, really, http://fsfe.org/about/basics/freesoftware.en.html

Besides there isn’t one single example that proprietary software harms the open. On the contrary big commercial companies help open source.

You (and everybody) lives in a society, therefore, the ethical, social and political decisions are implied already (and all the time) in everything you do, consciously or unconsciously. Software is just another thing you do in/for/against society. ‘In society’ all the time, ‘for society’ when you make or help Free Software, ‘against society’ when you make or help proprietary software (or go against Free Software).

«It is common sense that open source is the only way to make cheap software.» This is not just false, but also ludicrous: There’s plenty, LOTS of examples of cheap Free Software, because Free Software is not just a way to make cheap software, but also a way to make a more free and just and happy society for *everyone*, not just the rich or the corporations.

Never (ever) is open source «the only way» to make a new software. You can always make new and FREE software. Always.

And yes, it is about ideology, because you make your software free because you want to promote a better society, and when you don’t let everybody share and work with your work (what you already did using the work of other people) you’re doing an ideological decision: The decision to put your interest over and against the interest of community or society.

«I am recognizing the part that FSF played to spread open source», are you doing this on purpose? At this point, you should perfectly understand that FSF spread FREE SOFTWARE, not “open source”. I can’t figure out if you’re doing this with bad intention or you really don’t get it, but please, stop and reconsider, I don’t want to have to mark this beautiful website for me as an ‘anti-freedom/anti-FSF/anti-gnu’ one. It shouldn’t be necessary, remember: GNOME starts as a GNU project.

«I think even without GNU we would had free software today», saying that when you say that FSF spread ‘open source’ is just absurd. Anyway, that assumption is completely arbitrary and untestable, and there have been no other organization or movement with the impact and commitment that FSF and GNU (and RMS) had showed till today.

They’re doing (and had done) much, very much more than “protect our open source from companies”. If you really can’t see and understand that, I think you should study some history and then try again.

«Competition and big investments» are good only for the proprietary sector that get rich with that and the people who have money enough to buy their products. The rest of the world NEEDS freedom and solidarity. And sorry, but I’m with the rest of the world, not just with the privileged sector.

The issue wasn’t just the copyrights, the issue was also the kind of society and liberties and rights you’re building with your elections and opinions. The society we build is the society we live on.

If you’re really determined to keep thinking in that way, please, let me know, so I can go away from this website and stop participating in an anti-freedom/anti-solidarity activities.

Best regards :)

yes, you’re attacking, underhand and (not very) slyly:

«Pretty much there isn’t Free Software (FS), but we can baptize things by occasion as FS.», this is false and absurd, and the intention is attacking with a very pedestrian irony.

«What’s wrong with Free Software Definition?», this assumes that something is wrong, when the wrongness is in the proprietary software, who steals freedom and solidarity to users and developers.

«The last 3 days, just from curiosity I made some reading (lots lots of reading) in licenses (GPL, LGPL, Apache, MIT -latest versions), I read almost the whole FSF page, plus lots of pages in Wikipedia and documentation by Fedora, Debian, Open Source Initiative(OSI), and I read some documentation about patents in software.», this is just false and pretty childish: In 3 days you can’t read *half* of FSF’s page only.

«GNU C Library (glibc) is under LGPL license. FSF is trying to justify this. Fedora includes binary blobs. They try to justify this.», both are perfectly explained -not ‘justified’-, and you’re again trying to be ‘smart’ on your talking. I already posted about here, http://worldofgnome.org/trisquel-gnu-linux-the-most-free-gnome-distro/#comment-709219745

«Most of the so-called free software comes with LGPL (or a similar licenses) without fulfill FSF’s requirements.», “most”?, you must be kidding or you really need to make (some, any) research: There is LOTS of Free Software under GPL, and when I say LOTS I mean LOTS.

«FSF cannot accept that its original goal has failed and makes compromises just to prove that FS by definition exists.», oh, yes, because it’s extremely clear that the GNU/Linux-FreeSofwtare community is just disappearing in the air and dying quickly and silently, please, you can’t be this blind and fanatical… (!)

«Simple example. LGPL license permits you to link a “free” library (like glibc) with proprietary software. Proprietary Software is not ethical -according to FSF- and developers are criminals -according to RMS- but yes, the LGPL is compatible with FSF principles (by occasion!).», this is -again- perfectly explained, and your intention is a mere attack or a mere sign of ignorance.

«”Thank you very much FSF” and nothing more.», “and nothing more”?, you really need to learn some history, really.

I am recognizing the part that FSF played to spread open source, but I think even without GNU we would had free software today. Saying that FSF brought free software is like saying that Apple brought tablets ..you know what I mean.

Of course they’re doing great job by making the licenses so we can protect our open source from companies. On the other hand close source is not bad and actually makes good in software in general, it brings competition and big investments. Always the issue was with the copyrights, but these are far beyond software.

Viva la Cultura Libre :)

Best regards.

The GNU Library GPL

The GNU C library uses a special kind of copyleft called the GNU
Library General Public License(1), which gives permission to link
proprietary software with the library. Why make this exception?

It is not a matter of principle; there is no principle that says
proprietary software products are entitled to include our code. (Why
contribute to a project predicated on refusing to share with us?)
Using the LGPL for the C library, or for any library, is a matter of
strategy.

The C library does a generic job; every proprietary system or compiler
comes with a C library. Therefore, to make our C library available
only to free software would not have given free software any
advantage—it would only have discouraged use of our library.

One system is an exception to this: on the GNU system (and this
includes GNU/Linux), the GNU C library is the only C library. So the
distribution terms of the GNU C library determine whether it is
possible to compile a proprietary program for the GNU system. There
is no ethical reason to allow proprietary applications on the GNU
system, but strategically it seems that disallowing them would do more
to discourage use of the GNU system than to encourage development of
free applications. That is why using the Library GPL is a good
strategy for the C library.

For other libraries, the strategic decision needs to be
considered on a case-by-case basis. When a library does a special job
that can help write certain kinds of programs, then releasing it under
the GPL, limiting it to free programs only, is a way of helping other
free software developers, giving them an advantage against proprietary
software.

Consider GNU Readline, a library that was developed to provide
command-line editing for BASH. Readline is released under the
ordinary GNU GPL, not the Library GPL. This probably does reduce the
amount Readline is used, but that is no loss for us. Meanwhile, at
least one useful application has been made free software specifically
so it could use Readline, and that is a real gain for the
community.

Proprietary software developers have the advantages money provides;
free software developers need to make advantages for each other. I
hope some day we will have a large collection of GPL-covered libraries
that have no parallel available to proprietary software, providing
useful modules to serve as building blocks in new free software, and
adding up to a major advantage for further free software development.

(1) This license is now called the GNU Lesser General Public License,
to avoid giving the idea that all libraries ought to use it.
See Why you shouldn’t use the
Lesser GPL for your next library for more information.

An example is many USB wireless cards have non-free firmware dependencies. The problem with this from a technical point of view is that distributions which include non-free software give users an impression that there hardware works with GNU/Linux. While it works today it likely won’t work tomorrow. With non-free software you are dependent on the authors for updates. If there is a security vulnerability (a real world example of this is Ubuntu/Oracle fiasco) and the company which released the software decides to discontinue it/or change the licensing terms for future versions you are out of luck. Ubuntu users has Java pulled from there machines because Canonical could no longer distribute updates to Oracle’s Java. Another example of this is printers. Lexmark amongst others have released non-free drivers. These have had to be downloaded (another downside is they often can’t be included in the repositories which makes “GNU/Linux” harder- it’s not GNU/Linux that is the problem- it’s the chipset manufacturers) and when Lexmark fails to support / release older versions the printer no longer works. Not to mention you also end up with very few distributions actually supported (one or two at best usually). Now Lexmark is going bye-bye. Those who have Lexmark printers won’t get ANY updates. Had these drivers been free the community would have supported them, included them in the repositories, and users could continue using the devices they purchased. There are lots of similar examples. Many wireless devices work very poorly or not at all due to restrictive non-free firmware related issues.

The best thing users could do to improve the hardware support for GNU/Linux is to stop buying from companies which utilise these chipsets. This includes companies “supporting Linux” such as System76, LinuxCertified, ZaReason, EmperorLinux, and others. In fact there is only one company which takes freedom into account. And even if you don’t agree with the FSF definition or Stallman’s perspective on this issue there are many technical benefits to be had from pruning yourself from non-free software. Nobody likes the proprietary components even if they don’t agree with Stallman or the FSF except for the proprietary software crowd (Adobe/Microsoft/Apple/Bill Gates/Steve Jobs/etc). There is only one company that’s really fighting the fight right now. ThinkPenguin is the only company which has taken a stance against the use of chipsets (in any product) that are dependent on non-free software. ThinkPenguin’s actually getting somewhere in improving access to freedom friendly hardware too. What ThinkPenguin’s proved is free software is possible, free software is profitable, free software is better for users, and free software is easier to use. The company hasn’t cut off users from using distributions with non-free software although they DO actively encourage users to use libre.thinkpenguin.com as it’s a portal which removes information that supports distributions with non-free components/information. The company also actively supports the FSF, Trisquel, LinuxMint (a distribution which includes non-free software), and many other free software projects.