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.