- cross-posted to:
- opensource@lemmy.ml
- foss@beehaw.org
- hackernews@lemmy.smeargle.fans
- cross-posted to:
- opensource@lemmy.ml
- foss@beehaw.org
- hackernews@lemmy.smeargle.fans
Maxim Dounin announces the freenginx project.
As such, starting from today, I will no longer participate in nginx development as run by F5. Instead, I’m starting an alternative project, which is going to be run by developers, and not corporate entities:
It’s really good that I cannot statically link with something GPL or AGPL licensed without licensing my software GPL?
GNU is failing, in the rise of Chimera Linux.
(After capitalism is socialism. When corpo can’t exist along with the society, we will help you in political and you will help us to get from poverty to capitalism, to achieve socialism as soon as possible?)
So *GPL aren’t considered free software, they are just open source, because they restrict modification and redistribution. Then you borned the term FOSS which is superfluous, to get the BSD license and GPL in the same house?
(GNU still illegally use the term “free software”)
Actually, GNU is free software because it not only preserves the freedom of the user but it also preserves the freedom of the entire ecosystem. Lax licenses allow those freedoms to be taken away, a corporation can use that software to create a proprietary alternative and outcompete the open source one. With GPL, such maneuver is impossible.
No, free software does not have any restriction in any granted right, it is a requirement if they (authors) want themselves attributed.
GNU put restriction on modification and redistribution. Then they are just “open source”, then they have do define the term “Free and Open source software” which use more words to describe the same thing (assume free software = foss, because GNU always claimed they are making free software).
Much innovations is impossible.
And such long word for a license, I don’t want it fill up my A4.
Well, it hinges on your philosophical stance. GNU prioritizes user freedom by licensing every software piece and its derivatives under Free Software licenses like GPL. The advantage lies in creating an environment where constant license checks are unnecessary, providing a more streamlined and freedom-focused user experience.
deleted by creator
Read the last part of my inital answer, it’s solely that way because no one has the time to keep checking licenses with software.
Sorry, I thought the comment were by the AMDIsOurLord guy
Yes it is, that’s the point
Look at the corporate exploitation of free software and see that Stallman was right
Chimera Linux is the point.
But it is project’s philosophy, both BSD and GNU project will flame us if you teach them about licensing things
Disaster comes from our mouth
Lol some shitty distro used by almost nobody, and serves no interest other than corpo lover’s interests
About Chimera Linux is shitty, no, it is accessible for script kiddies since it use GNOME. It might gain popularity… some day… but I don’t think the day is too far
And enthusiasts will love it. But you hate it because you like to war on what license to use than to patch a bunch of software to make it work for musl (and perhaps, clang). You can only see they are “corpo lovers” but not realize that they are different from most linux by popularizing softwares that are unpopular if they are intended to be “superior”.
I hope you can get on realistic communism and understand that communism (socialism is much near) with infinite high tech is built on capitalism, and any communism that is not built on capitalism can only exist when people do not have enough food and aren’t developed. When you haven’t reach high capitalism (like Viet Nam) corpo + single party government that protect the rights of workers is the only way to do.
Lenin wrote: “The age of referencing books to discuss about socialist revolutionary credo has forever passed. I deeply believe that that era is over to never return. Today, we can only base our debates on socialism on the basis of experience.” (perhaps poorly translated.)
At least I escape unreadable and unmodifiable GNU stuff
I saw your interest in Marxism-Leninism. Marx taught: Labor productivity is the premise for this society to win over the old society (poorly translated because I read translated textboot)
(Năng suất lao động là tiền đề để xã hội này chiến thắng xã hội cũ)
So the communists must learn to do business. Otherwise it is dogma, moralism (and soon become revisionism). Look at Viet Nam, we would have a pure capitalist government if we don’t switch to market economy (reactionalists backed by US would rebel and they are supported by 3/4 Vietnamese poor people). Now poverty has fallen into history.
Nothing prevents GNU software to do business, as already proven by quite many successful corporations. BSD and MIT licenses will only result in exploitation, e.g Sony and Apple who take fruits of open source labor and give nothing back. The bourgeoisie is only inclined to enslave the proletariat and it’s labor, GPL stands in it’s way.
GNU already stated themselves, but they prohibit modification and redistribution: any modification must also fall under GPL. Perhaps I want my code public domain or 0BSD? In practical, commercial also mean modified.
From your writing I have seen you as a dogmatism of Marxism-Leninism. That’s revisionism. Nowadays new Marxism learn about Marxism-Leninism, then talk about how the business could get better, and competitive with other Marxism (to make money for the capitalists.) to produce more high-quality products
Anyone dislike? Marxism is always against dogmatism.