Nah, dude just wanted to type like cool trendy teenager (clown face)
You aren't particularly better - exact opposite of the OP, with zero capital letters in your post. (one more clown face emoji)
What are Your Takes On "GNU Purism"
- Thread starter amalxloop
- Start date
You aren't particularly better - exact opposite of the OP, with zero capital letters in your post. (one more clown face emoji)
I am On CachyOs So... Unless Its Ported To CachyOs I am Fine (For Now)Anyone interested should try "virtual Richard M. Stallman" package.
Code:DESCRIPTION This program began as an attempt to create a "virtual Richard M. Stall‐ man" for Debian GNU/Linux. Thus the choice of name. This program analyzes the currently-installed package list on a Debian GNU/Linux system, and reports the non-free and contrib packages that are currently installed to stdout. In some cases, such as regarding docu‐ mentation licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License with invari‐ ant sections, the opinions of Richard M. Stallman and the Debian project have diverged since this program was originally written. In such cases, this program follows the definition of freedom embodied in the Debian Free Software Guidelines. The packages in the non-free tree have restrictions on their use and/or distribution which cause them to fail to meet the terms of the Debian Free Software Guidelines included as part of the Debian Social Contract. However, some are sufficiently useful that their presence is often tol‐ erated by Debian users despite their licensing. The packages in the contrib tree are themselves free software but have some dependency on non-free software for their use that make them worthy of reporting so that their use can also be consciously considered. Richard is the most vocal among us on the issue of software morality, and we agree with Richard that Debian users should have an easy way to know when they are running non-free software on their systems. This program is our attempt to fill that need.Code:$ vrms Non-free packages installed on ryzen amd64-microcode Platform firmware and microcode for AMD CPUs and SoCs firmware-amd-graphics Binary firmware for AMD/ATI graphics and NPU chips Contrib packages installed on ryzen lutris video game preservation platform steam-installer Valve's Steam digital software delivery system torbrowser-launcher helps download and run the Tor Browser Bundle winetricks simple tool to work around common problems in Wine 2 non-free packages, 0.1% of 2143 installed packages. 4 contrib packages, 0.2% of 2143 installed packages.
Tbh, I am Way Past "Pretending To Be Cool" I Have Been Typing Like This For a While, So Camel Case Has Been Like a Norm To Me.
And Moreover, I am a Proggramer So :>
TrueCamelCaseLooksLikeThis. ItSavesSpaceWhilstStillEnablingADegreeOfReadability. It'sVeryUsefulForFilenamesInLinuxToExcludeSpacesButThereAreNumerousOtherPlacesIt'sUsefulFor.
Rocketing-warp9
Well-Known Member
Hmm!SeemsInteresting!
ILikeIt!
ILikeIt!
Last edited:
Thunderpants
Active Member
The only non-free software I've purchased and installed on Debian 13 is MakeMKV for ripping disks (mainly second user) rather than rent from streaming services. Everything else appears to be open source.
For Me, Its My Newspaper Subscription (epaper).
CaffeineAddict
Well-Known Member
MIT is my favorite too but it depends, sometimes you want your software to be explicitly open at all times.
You know anyone can take your MIT code and use it commercially without having to state changes and deliver source code to end user.
They can use it in their closed source project and make profit on you without you knowing anything about it.
On another side GPL sucks because it's incompatible with MIT, so any awesome GPL stuff out there is useless for your awesome MIT code.
But I've seen various workarounds around this where people mix MIT and GPL anyway but with explicit statements as to what license applies to what.
I'm not sure how legal that is, but it doesn't sound like it is.
---
And regarding thread title to stay on topic, problem with GPL3 is that GPL2 code like Linux can't make use of changes that are GPL3 licensed.
That's something Linus complains about and he's totally right.
Good luck getting all your work stolen then. (clown face)
That's what happens with MIT-licensed code: anyone can take it and close it off. That's what Apple and Sony did with BSD. It can't happen with Linux, because the GPL won't allow it.
The results over the years speak for themselves. Linux experienced meteoric growth because corporations had no choice but to publish their code and contribute back. FreeBSD, on the other hand, still struggles to this day, while corporations leech off it endlessly.
It's a long history, still:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License said:
I'm pretty some of you have this backwards...
(made with coPilot and Claude)
MIT/BSD/Apache — essentially "do what you want." Take it, use it, modify it, close it off, sell it. No obligation to share changes. Apache adds explicit patent grants, but the freedom is the same.
GPL (2 & 3) — "copyleft." You can use and modify it, but if you distribute software that includes GPL code, you must release your source code under the same GPL terms. The key trigger is distribution — if it never leaves your own servers, you may not have to publish anything (that's actually a known loophole).
GPL2 vs GPL3 — GPL3 added:
The incompatibility issue the thread mentions is real — you can't mix GPL and MIT code into one distributed binary cleanly, because GPL demands the whole thing be GPL upon distribution, which conflicts with MIT's "no restrictions" nature.
(made with coPilot and Claude)
MIT/BSD/Apache — essentially "do what you want." Take it, use it, modify it, close it off, sell it. No obligation to share changes. Apache adds explicit patent grants, but the freedom is the same.
GPL (2 & 3) — "copyleft." You can use and modify it, but if you distribute software that includes GPL code, you must release your source code under the same GPL terms. The key trigger is distribution — if it never leaves your own servers, you may not have to publish anything (that's actually a known loophole).
GPL2 vs GPL3 — GPL3 added:
- Anti-tivoization clauses (you can't lock down hardware to prevent running modified software)
- Explicit patent protections
- That's partly why Linus stays GPL2 for the kernel — he dislikes some of the GPL3 additions
The incompatibility issue the thread mentions is real — you can't mix GPL and MIT code into one distributed binary cleanly, because GPL demands the whole thing be GPL upon distribution, which conflicts with MIT's "no restrictions" nature.
I Prefer GPL by Default, And Apache 2.0 When Building Something For Corpo-Business Adoption.
If you use GPL, you have to distribute your custom code for others to use.
And I does.
I support, endorse and use F.O.S.S, I also gently encourage others to try out F.O.S.S alternatives where applicable, and when the offer is welcome rather than unwelcome, but I am not a GNU Purist by any means.
My workflow (both Art and I.T) is F.O.S.S first, using proprietary software only when there is no viable F.O.S.S alternative, or where said alternative does not meet my needs. (Krita, GIMP and Inkscape over Photoshop and Illustrator for example, although Art is not my current focus and I have been postponing my lessons as a result)
I do, however, have no objections towards using Proprietary Software, I use programs such as Steam, Discord, Telegram, Signal, on a daily basis, and I also recently purchased an Apple MacBook Pro (m1 with Touchbar) on layaway, for my own enjoyment. (I find the Touchbar to be a really curious little thing that has piqued my interest for years now)
I also enjoy and play Videogames, most of which are Proprietary-Licensed, with a handful of exceptions such as Luanti-Based Games (such as my own, PixeLands).
That is not to say that I do not respect or value the Free Software movement, however, likewise I hold Richard Stallman in esteem, and appreciate his ideas and contributions to the Free Software movement, both throughout history and in more recent times, even though we do not see eye-to-eye on the subject of Free Software absolutism.
In a nutshell: I am a Free Software First individual, but I hold no qualms about using Proprietary Software where (no pun intended) appropriate or where it suits my specific needs and wants.
My workflow (both Art and I.T) is F.O.S.S first, using proprietary software only when there is no viable F.O.S.S alternative, or where said alternative does not meet my needs. (Krita, GIMP and Inkscape over Photoshop and Illustrator for example, although Art is not my current focus and I have been postponing my lessons as a result)
I do, however, have no objections towards using Proprietary Software, I use programs such as Steam, Discord, Telegram, Signal, on a daily basis, and I also recently purchased an Apple MacBook Pro (m1 with Touchbar) on layaway, for my own enjoyment. (I find the Touchbar to be a really curious little thing that has piqued my interest for years now)
I also enjoy and play Videogames, most of which are Proprietary-Licensed, with a handful of exceptions such as Luanti-Based Games (such as my own, PixeLands).
That is not to say that I do not respect or value the Free Software movement, however, likewise I hold Richard Stallman in esteem, and appreciate his ideas and contributions to the Free Software movement, both throughout history and in more recent times, even though we do not see eye-to-eye on the subject of Free Software absolutism.
In a nutshell: I am a Free Software First individual, but I hold no qualms about using Proprietary Software where (no pun intended) appropriate or where it suits my specific needs and wants.
Similar threads
