Post AwtOXAjT5tOsC2Btp2 by eruwero@ieji.de
(DIR) More posts by eruwero@ieji.de
(DIR) Post #AwnMNh9SL8lszEwM0u by bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org
2025-08-03T08:01:00Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
I think the point that @ehashman's post upthread misses is that *integrating* #FOSS into proprietary products doesn't actually help improve software freedom. In fact, it's the opposite: it exploits the great FOSS to make proprietary software more desirable.So, speaking for myself — as someone who has spent most of my career doing boring bureaucratic fiscal sponsorship work for FOSS — I think for-profits doing bureaucratic work that helps them exploit FOSS is a disaster for software freedom.
(DIR) Post #AwnMbwj7EExVLXPnge by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2025-08-03T14:18:48.833916Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bkuhn @ehashman That's why you don't do "FOSS" - you do free software.AGPLv3-or-later and GPLv3-or-later licensed free software cannot legally be integrated into proprietary software and therefore cannot be integrated into proprietary products.
(DIR) Post #AwnRwhyPm965RTI57Q by bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org
2025-08-03T15:10:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Oh, @Suiseiseki, *of course* we should insist on #copyleft licenses like #AGPLv3 & copyedt-@next!Problem I discovered years ago — to which I have dedicated the part of my work that isn't #FOSS fiscal sponsorship — is enforcement of & widespread lack of compliance with #copyleft licenses.Big Tech just ignores the terms & gets away with ignoring users' & consumers' right to repair their software.We *are* working hard on this problem: See #Vizio: https://sfc.ngo/vizioCc: @eruwero
(DIR) Post #AwnRwj9nNJnL73cgUq by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2025-08-03T15:18:34.279840Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bkuhn @eruwero Yes, the main problem is with the lack of enforcement of Linux's license due to a lack of cooperation with many of its copyright holders (who are quite happy for the users freedom to be taken).The licenses on GNU software under strong licenses tends to be much better enforced - I see almost no infringement of GNU software (as the FSF does pursue any of such cases of infringement).More licenses do need to be permanently terminated and damages need to be pursued if the problem is to be solved (if the copyright holder(s) don't terminate the license on intentional infringement and make it clear that they will not tolerate any future distribution, why would a copyright infringer stop distributing?)."This Vizio TV runs on Linux, an operating system" - why does that page contain a false claim that you know is false?Does the Vizio TV also ship BusyBox? If so, Vizio TV's run BusyBux/Linux.
(DIR) Post #AwnSIhErBj7VXASxTk by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2025-08-03T15:22:34.080416Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bkuhn @eruwero I don't see any reason to license copyleft-next instead of AGPLv3-or-later - there is for example, no reason to limit the freedom to 15 years time span, when copyright last forever - may as well keep it free forever, rather than have it become proprietary after 15 years and then forevermore.
(DIR) Post #AwpXWpFJ6OpGVd9Ye0 by bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org
2025-08-04T07:07:59Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Suiseiseki I appreciate your enthusiasm for copyleft, but you do have a lot of details wrong.I will be frank — because I know w/ 99% confidence where your confusions come from: While we owe RMS much for his excellent work (particularly writing all the GPL Agreements) — frankly RMS misunderstands a lot about its enforcement b/c he hasn't done GPL enforcement himself since early 1990s.I urge you to read materials on https://sfc.ngo/vizio as it clears up many of the confusions you expressed.
(DIR) Post #AwpXWqLN1LGnuizujY by eruwero@ieji.de
2025-08-04T14:27:15Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bkuhn @Suiseiseki thank you for your work in this area! Could you briefly explain what would be advantages of the copyleft-next license over GPL? I read the license text but tbh I don't really know what the main problems with GPL are and how copyleft-next might solve them
(DIR) Post #AwpXWrJzNxl8wjMKDg by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2025-08-04T15:30:27.584931Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@eruwero @bkuhn Reviewing the license text (https://next.copyleft.org/pages/license-text.html), I have determined that there are no advantages of copyleft-next 0.3.1 over the AGPLv3-or-later or GPLv3-or-later - only disadvantages, as the license contradicts itself in at least 2 places.Please do not license under any version of copyleft-next - please license under AGPLv3-or-later or GPLv3-or-later or even a competently written weak license like Apache 2.0 - license proliferation is a burden in itself.>If the Derived Work includes material licensed under the GPL, You may instead license the Derived Work under the GPL.This contradicts the definition at the bottom of the license; `"GPL" means a version of the GNU General Public License or the GNU Affero General Public License.` as "the" != "a".As "the GPL" is left undefined - you have to consider that GPLv1, GPLv2 & GPLv3 have been released so far and you'll probably have to assume this means the latest version, thus there is only compatibility with version 3, which would then automatically shift to version 4 if that ever needs to be released (people being able to infringe a license by mistake if they only have a copy of the GPLv3 and not GPLv4 is a bad way to treat people).GPLv3-{only,or-later} is only compatible with AGPLv3-or-later & LGPLv2.1-or-later - it is not compatible with GPLv2-only and LGPLv2.1-only.>"If you Distribute the Object Code in a physical product or tangible storage medium ("Product"), the Corresponding Source must be available through such URL for two years from the date of Your most recent Distribution of the Object Code in the Product.2 years is too short of a term - it is extremely likely someone will finally get around to downloading the source code a second after 2.5 years after the product was released (as the product was discontinued 6 months after release) and business certainly would and could refuse to provide the source code.The {A}GPLv3-{only,or-later} is much better written, as it has a minimum 3 year term that is extended for however long spare parts or customer support is available for that product model - the business is not forced to provide the source code forever, which wouldn't be reasonable, while the user getting around to requesting the source code 2.5 years later, or 5 years later for products the company still sells support for, will be able to get it (assuming the business is compliant).>If You Distribute a work to Me specifically for inclusion in or modification of a Covered Work (a "Patch"), and no explicit licensing terms apply to the Patch, You license the Patch under this License, to the extent of Your copyright in the Patch.This appears to possibly be an overstep as to what copyright allows and there is no reason to include such term, when for a project you have a patch submission policy that requires stating that the changes are under x license, or that the copyright is assigned to y part, or send an email back to the patch submitter asking for confirmation.>7. Nullification of Copyleft/Proprietary Dual LicensingThis part appears to encourage selling of proprietary exceptions by making it specifically encouraged by the license?Although simply failing to defend people from proprietary software by choosing a weak license, or selling exceptions (for whatever reason), is hard to regard as immoral in itself, actively working to encourage proprietary software clearly is immoral.>The conditions in sections 3 through 5 no longer apply once fifteen years have elapsed from the date of My first Distribution of My Work under this License.There is no reason to limit a copyright period to 15 years when proprietary software licenses last longer than 15 years.If the software is any good and is long developed, businesses will take 15 year old versions and make them proprietary and make each following patch proprietary too as 15 years passes.I've seen many businesses use 15 year old versions of software that was licensed under the GPLv2-or-later 15 years ago (soon after relicensed to GPLv3-or-later which is crystal clear as to what is required), intentionally misreading the GPLv2 and concluding that proprietary versions of GPLv2 software are permitted.>10. Termination>Your license grants under section 1 are automatically terminated if You>a) fail to comply with the conditions of this License, unless You cure such noncompliance within thirty days after becoming aware of it, orThis is a contradiction - it says the license is automatically terminated and then it says there are 30 days to cure - it is highly important that the termination provisions of a license doesn't contain contradictions.The {A}GPLv3 has a much better termination clause - after termination, if you cease infringing, your license is provisionally reinstated while you work on coming back in compliance and then is permanently reinstated if you cure the violation within 30 days.>"Distributor" means Me and anyone else who Distributes a Covered Work.Distribution in some countries is regarded to cover some activities that are private usage - it isn't really fair that people who privately use software are forced to publish it.The {A}GPLv3 is much better, using convey to permit such private usage in such countries.
(DIR) Post #AwpYHNzAH0JnZanvnc by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2025-08-04T15:38:58.850039Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@eruwero @bkuhn Wow, there's more;`""Derived Work" means a work of authorship that copies from, modifies, adapts, is based on, is a derivative work of, transforms, translates or contains all or part of My Work, such that copyright permission is required. The following are not Derived Works: (i) Mere Aggregation; (ii) a mere reproduction of My Work; and (iii) if My Work fails to explicitly state an expectation otherwise, a work that merely makes reference to My Work."`Parts (ii) & (iii) open a hole in the copyleft wide enough to drive a truck through - proprietary software developers are going to dynamically link the software as a library and use it to enhance their proprietary software ("installing the library is mere reproduction and external library calls are merely making references to the work") and everyone loses.Please do not license under any version of copyleft-next - please license under AGPLv3-or-later or GPLv3-or-later or any completely written weak license like Apache 2.0!
(DIR) Post #AwpZIuKFcR4m7MxNOi by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2025-08-04T15:50:27.636000Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bkuhn None of my conclusions come from rms - those come from my own research and enforcement experiences.Where did I write that rms does GPL enforcement? - I pointed out that the FSF does the enforcement.I am very disappointed that the SFC is dishonest to people and refers to GNU/Linux or BusyBox/Linux or something else that certainly isn't just Linux as "Linux" (but I guess that's nothing compared to how they regard the proprietary software derivative works of Linux for the "OpenWRT One" as acceptable). Yes, I have read the details Vizio case - it's quite a gamble to sue the company as a user - if the sfc wins, it will make enforcing licenses much easier, as cooperation with the copyright holders will no longer be a requirement, but if the sfc loses it will be a disaster, as businesses will step up their license infringement of Linux and other GPLv2-licensed software with glee.
(DIR) Post #Awpd5s0nJHYyzftXcG by eruwero@ieji.de
2025-08-04T16:19:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Suiseiseki @bkuhn Thanks! I think some of your points seem valid, although I'm not a legal expert. Since so much free software is licensed under weak non-copyleft licenses it would be great if more people would use some copyleft license. So it would be great to better understand the differences and what people are actually doing to improve the situation. I didn't know about copyleft-next before this but would like to know more about what it's trying to solve wrt (A)GPLv3
(DIR) Post #Awpd5tEelEFImxO7rU by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2025-08-04T16:32:54.036512Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@eruwero @bkuhn I'm not a legal expert, although I have done extensive research into the topic.I cannot tell what copyleft-next is trying to solve compared to the {A}GPLv3-or-later, as it's nowhere near as good (it doesn't contain the GNU/Freedom, as it doesn't champion the users freedom?).Unfortunately, haphazardly re-licensing from weak to the poorly written copyleft license flavor of the week is going to end in disaster - as copyleft licenses tend to be incompatible with each other - which will result in developers being unable to work with each other.Careful licensing to AGPLv3-or-later or GPLv3-or-later, or other copyleft licenses compatible with those licenses (GPLv2-or-later or LGPLv2.1-or-later or LGPLv3-or-later - I actually cannot think of any other compatible copyleft license that is decently written) and then hard enforcement of such licensing (giving proprietary software developers the choice to either respect the users freedom, or stop distributing the software) would improve the situation.
(DIR) Post #Awpd607TALek8h4z8C by eruwero@ieji.de
2025-08-04T16:23:27Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Suiseiseki @bkuhn the goals are the same after all (as far as I can tell)
(DIR) Post #Awpd8FMrRbYk0gLjv6 by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2025-08-04T16:33:22.843503Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@eruwero @bkuhn The goals seem to be quite different.
(DIR) Post #Awq9U6b1vyDBi4RaPw by bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org
2025-08-04T22:14:08Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
I respond to this troll b/c it's an opportunity to say publicly why — in 2015 — I stopped saying “GNU/Linux”.I say “Linux-based systems” — which I also recommended for SFC's stylesheet.I ceased saying “ga-new-slash-lynn-ox” when RMS chastised me for saying “Linux” (but not “GNU”) in a post about VMWare's #GPL violation. I *had* mentioned the GNU GPL, but no GNU software was in their product.RMS told me I harmed #GNU every time I didn't footnote the word “Linux” & explain GNU/Linux.(1/3)
(DIR) Post #Awq9U7nTTBlBQxH2S8 by sicp@freesoftwareextremist.com
2025-08-04T22:35:52.729140Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bkuhn Android is a Linux-based system, but everyone knows it's not the type of Unix-like system that GNU/Linux is.Using GNU with something that isn't Linux like a BSD kernel is more or less the same system as GNU/Linux--most programs that run on GNU/Linux that don't use Linux-specific functions will run on other Unix-compatible systems, and most are designed to be compatible with GNU, since that's what GNU is: a Unix-compatible system.I think you're better off saying "GNU-based systems".
(DIR) Post #Awq9UFIDbHVmgKiBqS by bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org
2025-08-04T22:19:53Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(2/3)A few years earlier, RMS had objected to *ever* saying “BusyBox/Linux”. RMS eventually conceded (after much debate) that it was ok to say “BusyBox/Linux” only if one could prove that not a single line of GNU code appeared in the product.After winning that argument, I asked RMS to please correct the places he called systems “GNU/Linux” that had #Linux but no #GNU in them.RMS refused saying (paraphrased) that GNU was being harmed by “these confusions”, not Linux, so there was no need.
(DIR) Post #Awq9UJdzQHIsB0vdKq by bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org
2025-08-04T22:34:47Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(3/3)IMO, RMS is a genius-level intellect. But RMS is also a human being who is can terribly wrong sometimes. RMS is likely correct 90+% of the time. But #SoftwareFreedom should not incorporate papal infallibility &/or divine right of kings.The #GPL Agreements are some of the best licenses ever written & I thank RMS for them. I've dedicated my life to adjudicate them.Judge #FOSS folks on their actions, not what words they say.This is *my* last word on “GNU/Linux”. (Posted for posterity.)
(DIR) Post #AwqIzva3KD5cOoEfRY by bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org
2025-08-04T23:32:09Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
🤔Q: how many sock puppets does it take to win an argument with me?A: A lot more than three.Q: how many sock puppets does it take to get me to invest time figure out how to block an entire #Mastodon server?A: Exactly three.For the legit posters in this conversation (such as @eruwero & @graves501 & @ehashman (who posted the root of this thread)), keep in mind I won't see that server anymore RSN.It's my first time blocking this way I'm worried what it does to legit parts of thread. 😬
(DIR) Post #AwqIzwXbkmjDNW6EGu by PurpCat@clubcyberia.co
2025-08-05T00:22:27.275061Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@bkuhn @eruwero @graves501 @ehashman sir you are not an anime character
(DIR) Post #AwqJGdHmb634a9ehnc by sally@freesoftwareextremist.com
2025-08-04T23:27:33.373977Z
2 likes, 0 repeats
@bkuhn
(DIR) Post #AwqJIX5ScCIzw6nWyW by D00B@clew.lol
2025-08-05T00:25:51.593587Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@bkuhn @eruwero nigger
(DIR) Post #AwqOl2FiprccTQ0ZCC by sally@freesoftwareextremist.com
2025-08-04T23:39:33.663222Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@bkuhn @eruwero @graves501 @ehashman
(DIR) Post #AwqfrBOZSEinmsfExc by tusharhero@mathstodon.xyz
2025-08-05T04:38:37Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bkuhn @eruwero @graves501 @ehashman I would have liked if you addressed particularly one of the post (from the "trolls") directly discussing the licence text..
(DIR) Post #AwqgKV0Jd1Xl07IXYW by graves501@fosstodon.org
2025-08-04T22:38:55Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bkuhn Yeah, I get the GNU/Linux or GNU+Linux sentiment, but when people get pedantic or even upset if you leave out the GNU prefix then it gets ridiculous.People want to move on with their lives and not get nitpicked, especially when it's already (more or less) clear what the current topic is about.
(DIR) Post #AwqgKWFwyNdystcXZ2 by tusharhero@mathstodon.xyz
2025-08-05T04:43:53Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@graves501 @bkuhn problem is in most situations it is not actually clear.
(DIR) Post #AwqgNjBDNb69ppw4JM by eruwero@ieji.de
2025-08-04T23:27:52Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@graves501 @bkuhn I agree that it's not helpful to be too pedantic about it. There are usually more important things to argue about. But I also think it's a bit weird that Linux became synonymous with all the operating systems using it, when the original project for a free operating system was GNU, and in most cases a huge part of the OS is still GNU. So I get why RMS insists on GNU in the name, if it's also used. But for nonGNU systems that doesn't really make sense of course
(DIR) Post #AwqmrkfV0eK0rcnhTM by bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org
2025-08-05T05:57:08Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tusharhero I don't mind answer that question, & before the troll started using racist terms (none of you saw it, I caught it fast), I was about to reply with this: for those not following the #copyleft-@next list, @richardfontana has said on almost every issue raised that all of it has to be rethought. Both @richardfontana & I have been so busy we've not been able to talk about this, but I'm thinking of taking the license text off the website since most of it'ill change in the next year.
(DIR) Post #Awqn1P5k5OdQqBg6Ou by bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org
2025-08-05T05:58:53Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tusharhero Not when i say any of the terms we've discussed here, because I'm extremely precise and clear.It's why that troll saying I and/or SFC was "dishonest" was just risible.Cc: @graves501
(DIR) Post #Awqp1XEM1eLtzWteIS by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2025-08-05T06:21:18.143942Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@bkuhn It's quite sad how mastodon forced you to split up such short post into 3 posts.>Response to a trollI'm not even trolling.>I say "Linux-based systems"That is an error when not referring to the incredibly rare systems which are Linux plus a single added binary and you know it.In other systems, most of the software does not care what kernel you use and therefore Linux is clearly not the base.There are GNU-based systems and BusyBox-based systems with Linux."systems with Linux" wouldn't be an error and I guess that would give a chance to make people realize that the systems aren't just Linux.>when Richard Stallman (RMS) chastised me for saying “Linux” (but not “GNU”) in a post about VMWares #GPL violation.Why not link to the post in question?Without that, nobody can decide if it was right or wrong to chastise you.>RMS told me I harmed #GNU every time I didn't footnote the word “Linux” & explain GNU/Linux.Unfortunately, it does in fact continue the harm done to GNU if anyone fails to make it clear that Linux is only a kernel in posts that are in fact about Linux (ideally this wouldn't be required - but the confusion is just that bad).>one could say “BusyBox/Linux” if (& only if) one proved that no #GNU code appeared in the product.I actually read the source code of BusyBox and I found GNU code copy pasted in 10+ places and BusyBox is indeed a clone of GNU.Individually each part is clearly not much, but considering all the parts together and the cloning of GNU - I've determined that it wouldn't be incorrect to refer to those systems are GNU/Linux, although it may disappoint any users if they try such systems and realize almost all of GNU is missing - thus I would recommend calling them BusyBox/Linux instead.>he called systems “GNU/Linux” that had #Linux but no #GNU in them.>I asked RMS to please correct the places he called systems “GNU/Linux” that had #Linux but no #GNU in them.>RMS refused saying (paraphrased) that GNU was being harmed by “these confusions”, not Linux, so there was no need.Linux isn't being harmed if someone by mistake calls a system without GNU, "GNU/Linux" - as Linux is not being excluded from the name is it?Which places do those mistakes occur? I'll review them and get them fixed if they are in fact mistakes.>Judge #FOSS folks on their actions,not what words they say.Knowingly choosing to repeat proprietary language is an action that I will judge people about.
(DIR) Post #AwqpDcyKVLAfH1ARRg by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2025-08-05T06:23:30.207433Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bkuhn @tusharhero @graves501 I was clearly referring to the "SFC" and I pointed out how specifically they were dishonest.
(DIR) Post #AwqpHxH2xrNrOfzApM by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2025-08-05T06:24:16.942195Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bkuhn @eruwero @graves501 @ehashman There are no sock puppets.Sally is not me.I have only my holy account.
(DIR) Post #AwqqJ1csMw6B8eGohE by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2025-08-05T06:35:40.837847Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@sicp @bkuhn Android isn't in fact based off Linux.Google started with GNU/Linux and replaced each part of GNU and also other parts with their own libraries etc and added a bunch of Java libraries and a custom rendering toolkit etc.I don't believe standard Android software (installed from a .apk) are even permitted to make Linux SYSCALLs directly - although those can read some files from /sys (without root access, the files that can be accessed are limited)?>like a BSD kernel is more or less the same system as GNU/LinuxThose are GNU systems with kernel other than Linux.>most programs that run on GNU/Linux that don't use Linux-specific functions will run on other Unix-compatible systemsAll programs that don't make Linux SYSCALLs directly can be compiled to work on other GNU systems without Linux (although even programs that do might still work fine, as GNU/Hurd for example has a Linux SYSCALL compatibility library, same as windows).>I think you're better off saying "GNU-based systems".If it in fact doesn't have GNU, I would rather recommend "systems with Linux", but it is true that if you see a less than completely trivial, free software system, that wouldn't have been possible to make without the solid base of GNU to start from.
(DIR) Post #AwqsXZspzstVLfnrAO by zevon@c.im
2025-08-05T06:53:16Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Suiseiseki @bkuhn "It's quite sad how mastodon forced you to split up such short post into 3 posts."Only in its default configuration. Luckily there are instances (such as c.im) that expand the character limit.And using #Linux as a shorthand, or "Linux-based systems", is perfectly fine. Get with the times.Insisting on terminological purity reeks of sectarianism and that is really the last thing we need if we want more people to adopt #SoftwareFreedom.
(DIR) Post #AwqsXbAxC0ynM9Hq2i by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2025-08-05T07:00:40.808679Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@zevon @bkuhn >And using #Linux as a shorthand, or "Linux-based systems", is perfectly fine. Get with the times.If you want to use a shorthand - just write GNU - it's shorter.Writing "Linux" or "Linux-based" and excluding the GNU or BusyBox is exclusively shilling proprietary software buzzwords, as Linux is proprietary software.Get with the times - shill proprietary software buzzwords.>Insisting on terminological purity reeks of sectarianismFree software is about purity - if it's not pure, it's not free.>that is really the last thing we need if we want more people to adopt #SoftwareFreedom.Popularity isn't the goal - software freedom is.Yes, it is possible to gain a lot of popularity by including proprietary software that is never removed, but that is not the road to software freedom.
(DIR) Post #AwtOWzthNW30aZtPk0 by bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org
2025-08-06T05:10:50Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
When I took “Operating Systems” as an undergraduate, the only material taught were the facilities and interfaces that a kernel provides.When the term was adopted by the nontechnical public, it mainly meant the GUI they saw when they started their computer.Words do matter but as Larry Wall once suggested to me on this issue: “We should follow the rule of network protocols: ‘be conservative in what you emit, & liberal in what you accept’”. Cc: @graves501 @normplum @gumnos@eruwero@TheOneDoc
(DIR) Post #AwtOX1AkdbHYXksXxY by eruwero@ieji.de
2025-08-06T11:56:09Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bkuhn Sure, the kernel is the core of any operating system, so to understand how they work you need to learn about the kernel. But an actually usable OS is much more than that, even without a GUI. To have an actually free OS you need a compiler to build it (GCC), you need to be able to write the source code (GNU emacs, obviously the best editor that ever existed), you need to manage files etc. (GNU coreutils, binutils), you need a shell (GNU bash),...@graves501 @normplum @gumnos @TheOneDoc
(DIR) Post #AwtOX2AQwGcdd3jo6S by eruwero@ieji.de
2025-08-06T12:00:35Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@bkuhn I think it's not easy to find free software that doesn't in some way depend on #GNU software.But the more important point IMO is that GNU stands for the overarching(and extremely ambitious) project, not any single piece of software. It's as much an ideological project as it is a software project.That's IMO the main problem with people leaving it out of the discussion and instead using Linux for the whole OS and "open source" when it should be about freedom and not openness.@tusharhero
(DIR) Post #AwtOXAjT5tOsC2Btp2 by eruwero@ieji.de
2025-08-06T12:02:29Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bkuhn I don't care too much about nontechnical people using wrong or misleading terms when it comes to this, but at least the people putting together the actual OSes (i.e. distributions) should be honest enough to call it what it is (whether it's #GNU or #BSD, based on #Linux or not, etc.). They should know better. But I guess the sponsors don't like that.