“is a bit too extreme”

Understatement of the year. You are a dev who wants to make some money on the side and keeps her software proprietary because monetizing open-source is a rare exception than the rule? F!@# her and her lack of ethics! And don’t touch her software, or her, with a 10 foot pole, let alone pay for it!

Oh, there’s a proprietary firmware blob that this device requires, but it runs off onboard flash so the OS doesn’t see it? Perfectly fine! If the OS doesn’t see it, see no evil, speak no evil, there is no evil.

The FSF are the Puritans of the 21st century. Both in extremity and hypocrisy.

What a reactive, defensive attitude.

Just try applying everything you wrote to the topic of being vegetarian. Vegetarians are indeed arguing against meat-eating, and you could talk about how you are just some pig farmer selling meat on the side, and the vegetarians are saying "F You!"

And then there's the practical problems with whether animal products are identified in various food products…

And people get super defensive about that stuff too. But this desire to reject the FSF or the vegetarians and call them extremists and hypocrites amounts to an emotional refusal to engage fairly with any of the actual issues or even what the people are actually saying or doing.

Nothing I said was not true.

The FSF encourages all members to shun proprietary software of any kind - which is why we have Linux-Libre and Trisquel.

Even though, to put it simply, monetizing open source is very rare and the FSF looks down on people (including solo programmers) with the gall to keep their software proprietary.

The FSF is also a complete hypocrite when it comes to firmware. Proprietary firmware which the OS can’t see (because it is loaded from onboard flash) is compliant with their “Respects Your Freedom” hardware certification, which is asinine and actively reduces my freedom to reverse-engineer that firmware or replace it with an open driver.

According to FSF logic, a solo programmer making proprietary software for money is to be shunned. A device with an embedded proprietary blob could be certified as freedom-respecting and tolerable. That’s retarded.

There are vegans who encourage shunning animal products. And yes, there are critiques of people with the "gall" to eat meat. Those facts don't mean they are wrong. That's a matter of engaging with the actual arguments.

To say the RYF certifcation is hypocritical is a misunderstanding. They drew a line for certification that isn't 100% puritanical. They aren't absolutely impractical. They don't say that your points about firmware don't matter, they just wanted a line that could be practical for the certification.

I recognize your point, but your language and judgments are out of line. The FSF argues that embedded blobs that are completely unchangeable by anyone are similar to hardware. Now, I happen to agree with you that the lack of freedom is still a problem. But the distinction they make isn't totally illogical.

Vegan movements can be extreme too, and you can criticize them. But the level of animosity and defensiveness people get into shows that people are really sensitive about these things. It's as though they recognize that there might really be some fundamental issues with proprietary software or with meat, and the existence of the anti-proprietary or anti-meat views cuts people to the core. I mean, it's one thing to simply disagree, but it says a lot more when people are SO emotional about it.

Seems to me that they've found themselves stuck with the worst of both worlds. A freedom/privacy certification that has a pretty glaring (and arguably hypocritical) omission, and a tepid response from industry because they won't budge on things like including proprietary drivers for Windows.

Their certified product list is... sparse.

https://ryf.fsf.org/products

the same thing applies to vegetarians. Smart and effective vegetarians who want to promote vegetarianism don't fill a balloon with red paint and throw it at someone while screaming 'meat is murder!', they convince people to cut down their consumption, promote alternatives that ordinary people can deal with, and as a result get 50% of what they want to a hundred times as many people, which is more than 100% of nothing.

That's the difference between ideologues and people who actually care about the values they promote rather than people who aggrandize themselves.

The analogy works because 99.9% of vegetarians don't even use words to directly tell others that they are unethical, they just assert their OWN vegetarianism as an ethical decision, and others go bonkers as though this is the most grotesque personal attack. This all happens without any red-paint-balloons or other extremist stuff.

In other words, when someone comes along and says what amounts to "for ethical reasons, I behave differently than you", people interpret it (understandably but unreasonably) as saying "you are an unethical person" (whereas the responsible reaction is, "hmm, maybe there's an ethical issue here that I should consider that I haven't yet"). Then, people focus all their attention on rationalizations to reject the other person, such as calling them "ideologues".

The Trisquel website doesn't say, "if you use or make proprietary software, you are evil". People react to the subtle implications as if that's what it said though. Maybe that's because people don't want to admit that they actually do act in ways that are ethical compromises?

> Smart and effective vegetarians who want to promote vegetarianism don't fill a balloon with red paint and throw it at someone while screaming 'meat is murder!'

Are the GNU/FSF folks doing that? The most I'm aware of is strongly-worded blog posts, which is rather short of physical ... outbursts.

You miss the point. It is absolutely true that making a living by writing FOSS is really hard, but it's not just about money. Monetizing out of personal data and advertising has never been profitable like today; Open Source is the only defense against abuse in that context. Look at what many popular closed operating systems and products, hardware included, became in the last 10 years or less: they stopped being tools in the hands of the user to morph into business platforms that mine users' data and/or bomb them with advertising. Many people probably would accept to live in a world in which every square meter is plastered with some ads and every move is analyzed to infer users habits and ultimately find what would be the easiest way to grab the most money from them, but I don't. All this privacy and security aside, which in some countries can make the difference between being poor and being poor and jailed or dead. FOSS is the last line of defense against that kind of abuse, being a bit extremist when dealing with abuses is a sign that someone, somewhere, understood what is going on.

BTW: if making money with FOSS is hard, it's not FOSS fault, but rather it shows how badly our economic system has failed.

> BTW: if making money with FOSS is hard, it's not FOSS fault, but rather it shows how badly our economic system has failed.

If your business gives away its products for free, then it's always going to be an uphill battle to make money.

Just pre-fund with kickstarter or similar.

Or through a light taxation system for biggest companies. If say .01% of the revenue of the 100 biggest IT corporations was distributed yearly among the most useful projects, those in need of maintainers etc, the developers living in bad economical conditions etc. the problem would probably cease to exist for thousands of developers while those being taxed would barely notice some missing change from their pockets. Not that different from public healthcare, therefore it requires a change of perspectives (the common good) to fully understand it.

Who defines the most useful projects? How do new projects get their start?

I think a simpler and less revolutionary route would be to simplify the registration of open source projects to be able receive tax exempt donations. That’d be a massive boost with only a minor change to the tax code.

>Understatement of the year. You are a dev who wants to make some money on the side and keeps her software proprietary because monetizing open-source is a rare exception than the rule? F!@# her and her lack of ethics! And don’t touch her software, or her, with a 10 foot pole, let alone pay for it!

Are you asking for the free software foundation to support proprietary software?

I think that's just the point here: yes, strictly speaking they are, but practically speaking the alternative is to put the user's cybersecurity at risk.

If you ask just about any user, they will say they prioritise their cybersecurity over the purity of their Free Software stack. The FSF seemingly disagree. That disagreement is an important one.

I don't know. You can spin a lot of stuff as cyber security.

Hosting all stuff in cloud does prevent getting locked by some ransom ware.

Plus security isn't an absolute. A determined enough actor could always hack you.

> Puritans of the 21st century. Both in extremity

For work I run MacOS, because they assigned me a Macbook and pay me to do so. Currently I program Android, which has a free software system somewhere under there, although there are unfree layers on top, which have been discussed to death.

I also personally use Ubuntu for my desktop and laptop. Years ago I put Gnewsense as a boot-up option for a machine.

For different tasks I use different levels of proprietary or free software. I don't see my installing of Gnewsense as puritanical or extreme (me wanting full control of my OS is puritanical and extreme?), just as I don't see me using the proprietary MacOS as puritanical and extreme. If me being able to control my own operating system is puritanical and extreme, then what do you call having someone else being able to control my operating system?

There may be free extremists but that means there are proprietary extremists as well.

This shouldn't be downvoted. It's an opinion that is unpopular here, but which needs to be stated occasionally. The FSF is extreme, and, right now, not 10-20 years ago, but right now, the FSF and Stallman are negative assets for FOSS.

How is it “extreme”? The point of the FSF is to foster and support free software. Supporting non-free software is literally the opposite of their mission.

The guy you replied to is being childish and exaggerating. The FSF isn’t some extremist organization out to destroy people who dare to write or use closed source software.

Do they refuse to include proprietary software in their distributions/projects? Obviously.

Are they going to tell you to go fuck yourself because you refuse to release the source code to your app? Probably not (I guess if you’re an asshole about it, someone might)

> the FSF and Stallman are negative assets for FOSS

The FSF and Stallman are the only assets for FOSS. Who else is supporting free software?

> The FSF and Stallman are the only assets for FOSS.

The FSF doesn't even support the use of the term "FOSS".

They support the idea of libre software. The broader "open source" community is much larger than the FSF or RMS.

The GPL is the third most popular FOSS license.

> The FSF doesn't even support the use of the term "FOSS".

Personally I use "FOSS" as shorthand for FSF's definition of "free software". If that's misleading, then I guess I should stop using it. Would you happen to have a link to a blog post or something about this?

> They support the idea of libre software. The broader "open source" community is much larger than the FSF or RMS.

I'm not talking about the "open source" community. There's a difference between free software and open source software.

It's obvious that I'm not talking about "open source" here, otherwise it'd suggest that I think FSF and RMS are the only ones writing open source software. I can't even imagine a situation where someone could be led to believe that, especially on HN.

> The GPL is the third most popular FOSS license.

Regardless of what you mean by "FOSS" here, how is that statistic relevant to the discussion?

I think you may have too rosy a view of the FSF. Step back and think about what the FSF has done for FOSS in the last 10 years. When people say "I don't want to get into a licensing debate" who do you think they are talking about?

> Are they going to tell you to go fuck yourself because you refuse to release the source code to your app? Probably not (I guess if you’re an asshole about it, someone might)

I can cite an example of where someone from the FSF has hassled an FOSS project that refused to modify their license to the GPL, and instead chose MIT. I'd prefer not link here, because I don't want the maintainers to be inundated with further (BS) requests. I'd say that's extreme. What's worse is it's off-putting (to me, at the very least).

> The FSF and Stallman are the only assets for FOSS. Who else is supporting free software?

Um, literally all the people writing FOSS? Mozilla, IBM/Redhat, Google?

How much of what Mozilla and Google are writing is released under GPL?

I guess I don't understand your point. Are you saying non-GPL open source licenses (Apache, MPL2, MIT) aren't FOSS? That seems like a pretty extreme position.

> That seems like a pretty extreme position.

I think you're confusing some terms. "Free software" != "Open source software". (although MPL2 is a free software license, like GPL/LGPL).

Ever heard the saying "free as in freedom"? That's what "free software" is about. It has nothing to do with money or pricing. A license like Apache or MIT is not a free software license because it does not provide any freedom to end users.

Look at Android for example: there's something called AOSP on the internet, which contains some code that you can download. However, that code is not the same code that's powering the phone you have in your pocket. Since AOSP is licensed under Apache, Samsung is able to fork it, add/remove features, inject all the spyware they want etc, and then sell it to you as a binary blob without giving you the source code.

If Android were GPL, they'd be obligated to release the source code that's powering their devices. This would be a huge win for consumers, and a huge win for the entire tech industry at large, since everyone can benefit from the development efforts Samsung put in. If Samsung wants to keep that code secret, then they simply must avoid using free (as in freedom) software.

It worries me that devs today don't seem to get this. The tech industry would be 99.999% owned and operated by Microsoft today if not for the efforts of the FSF and Stallman.

More/better info: https://www.fsf.org/resources/what-is-fs

I have to tell you -- being patronized by a GPL advocate isn't a new or unusual experience for me, but, I'm still amazed people believe this is the way to win converts.

FOSS means Free and Open Source Software. And there are many views about that freedom. Not just Mr. Stallman's.

Yes, I'm aware of Android (ask yourself -- where are we having this discussion?). No, I don't think "The tech industry would be 99.999% owned and operated by Microsoft today if not for the efforts of the FSF and Stallman" is a reasonable view of the history.

How am I being patronizing? I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you're just confused about the definition of some terminology that people commonly get confused about.

If you are aware of the definition, and are conflating the terms on purpose to make a statement or something, the derailing of this conversation is on your for being deliberately confusing.

> there are many views about that freedom. Not just Mr. Stallman's.

Sure, but since the conversation is about the FSF, I think it's obvious that I'm talking about the FSF's definition of the term "freedom" (especially since I linked to it)

> Yes, I'm aware of Android (ask yourself -- where are we having this discussion?)

Did you actually read what I wrote? I wasn't introducing you to Android, I was using it as an example to highlight the consequences of using a non-free license on a project. Something I felt would be helpful since you didn't seem to be aware of the FSF's definition of free software.

> No, I don't think "The tech industry would be 99.999% owned and operated by Microsoft today if not for the efforts of the FSF and Stallman" is a reasonable view of the history.

Ok, fine, maybe take a 9 or two off the end.

You've done it! You've converted me with your brilliant repartee! Your dazzling certitude made me realize -- I don't know what I've been doing with my life. On the road to Damascus, I found the FSF. Mr. Stallman's way or the highway!

How else other than by being radical do you expect not to lose ground?

This is just such an exceedingly weird opinion. "Permanent revolution" sounds very romantic, but real people want to stop and lives their lives, as well.

Once you've convinced the broader industry of the benefits of FOSS, I'm not sure everyone has to be a radical anymore. I think GPL advocates/FSF/Stallman's time might be better spent finding a way to pay FOSS developers.

A gigacorporation owns the major git repository of open source software, and uses said code to promote its own ML code creation project.

Another steals free software to implement its own live streaming, unpunished.

Thousands of developers get paid to maintain free software by donations and contributions from the very advocates you find too radical.

And you find romanticism weird‽

I'd also say there is a pretty clear tree of an argument re: the "everything must be libre only" line:

1. Are you a developer? Do you want to use your code later in project that you may not control?

2. Do you use non-GPL software? Like X/Wayland?

3. Do you use proprietary software? Why does a game dev deserve to get paid when that logging software upon which your company depends does not?

4. You're not any of the above -- are simply a user that wants FOSS firmware? What has libre-Linux done for you on this front? The answer is nothing. Except keep ZFS out of the kernel, because... reasons? More open firmware will happen. However, not because of legal reasons, but because FOSS arguments for transparency and market forces.

I'm not saying your choices are wrong. They are your choices after all. I'm saying they're not the only possible choices.

Re: 1, legally speaking, GPL does virtually nothing to prevent an ML model more than, say, MIT. It's a problem for all FOSS licenses. FSF/GPL really don't represent all of FOSS. As someone else noted, GPL is the 3rd most popular FOSS license. I'd add -- for a reason.

Re: 2, I know less about this, but from what I do know, legally speaking, this seems like a trademark problem, not a copyright or license issue.

I'm saying, in some sense, you've already won. If you want to fight about trademarks and other IP, God bless, please do. Just please don't think adopting the most extreme position re: your license choice endows you with some heightened dignity over someone who just made a different choice.