Can someone explain why this asshole thinks it's such a

>>58684966
autism

To make sure that the software serves the person using it, not the other way around.

Low effort bait

>>58684966
Nice bait OP

>>58684993
So what's wrong with it simply being open source then? Most people can't read or wont be bothered to decipher tens of thousands of lines of code anyway.

>>58685008
Doesn't give usage freedom to the user

>>58685521
>>58685521

My point is why is this freedom important? The software is working for me if it does what I paid for/ downloaded it to do and it does not invade my privacy.

Stallman is basically saying if I buy a book, I should have the right to rewrite parts of that book and resell copies of it.

>>58685549
>it does not invade my privacy.
If software is not open/free you literally cannot know that it's not spying on you

>>58684966
Your grandma does not browse a tech board, you do. Fuck off to /v/ where people don't care about software technology.

Get out

>>58684966
Because it's one of the attack vectors on western civilization, (((leftists))) saw that software can solve a multitude of problems and generate large ammounts of innovation.
They coudn't allow this, so they created a system where if you license software under the GPL it belongs to no one, and can't be used in other projects because it means you loose property of that project (see why Linux is still GPLv2).
Linux is Torvald's property, 3rd parties contribute but it's his property.
There have been asked a lot in (((Stallman)))'s speeches about how can you profit from your own work if you make Free Software.
As a goog kike he never answers this simple question and instead mocks around and throws ad-hominems.
>>58684995
>>58684999
>>58685708
Brainwashed people become aggresive when confronted with mere question about their beliefs.

>>58685744
Nice argument, shill

>>58685744
>software under the GPL it belongs to no one
That's the BSD/Public domain licence. Stop spreading FUD

>>58684966

because if you buy a car and you want to change the tires you can

if you buy a program you should be able to know what it's doing and be able to change the way it operates if you feel like it

>>58685549

If you use windows it's spying on you through every means possible. This is a good example.

you are a cuck who pays for software that spys on you and then even defends it. It's not even subtle anymore.

>>58685554

you actually can through reverse engineering

>>58684966
What happens when software's original developer(s) cease support / When your grandmother's favorite ancient software isn't compatible with the OS her brand new computer uses:

>proprietary
sorry, hope someone likes it enough to reverse-engineer it and/or make something close enough for you
>open but not FOSS
you can make a copy but you may not modify it, even if it's for something important like compatibility with kernel updates OR you may copy and modify it, but may not distribute; if someone else has problems that would be fixed by your changes they're SOL
>FOSS
You (or anybody) may make copies and modify them for anything from small bug fixes to cross-platform ports, and if you like you can share said derivatives with others who can do the same thing if they please.

>>58685757
The argument stands regardless.
>>58685769
BSD license allows anyone to take it and make it their property, it's like if you throw away something don't whine when someone picks it up and leaves.
Don't throw away things you care about.
GPL software (v3 mostly), means no one can own the software, means you can't say it's "yours", becasue it belongs to the collective.
Open source software still belongs to it's creator, other can contribute as they see fit, but the company that created the software can profit from it thus generating incentive to improve and support it.

File: 1475344219732.jpg (43KB, 570x587px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 570x587px

>>58685549
>Stallman is basically saying if I buy a book, I should have the right to rewrite parts of that book and resell copies of it.

No.

Stallman is specifically talking about free software you fuckhead. Stallman has no problems with buying software but he is saying that you should get the source code and should be able to edit it to your whim. Fucking kill yourself.

>If I don't have a use for it, then no one does!

Your grandmother doesn't direct airline traffic, yet air traffic controllers exist. Proprietary software is harmful because someone who cares about their privacy and security cannot guarentee the program isn't doing anything malicious. While you can't be sure free software isn't doing anything malicious, simply having the ability to examine the code can deter would-be criminals. Additionally, people who do care about examing source code can do so, and even improve/port/fork/maintain the software.

>>58685851
>What happens when software's original developer(s) cease support / When your grandmother's favorite ancient software isn't compatible with the OS her brand new computer uses:

Well, normal people just use the new version or adapt to another program.
So these rights are only usable for a small percentage of virgin nerd neets.

>>58685834
Stallman is opposed to software even that respects your privacy if you can't modify and redistribute it.

>>58685886
If I buy a book, I get the source code. If I edit parts of that book and try to redistribute it I will end up paying a court judgement for the rest of my life.

>>58685897
So what is morally reprehensible about me writing a program, patenting the code, and showing you what the code is?

>>58685913
>try to redistribute
why and why are you not giving it back to the author?

>>58685925
Why don't you go change the ending of Harry Potter, release it online as the same book for free, and email a copy to JK Rowling and see what happens.

>>58685944
kek

>>58685924

What if the code you write is very general and you get a patent on it? For example, what if you decided to patent software that uses the http protocol to display a web page to the user? Here, no one else would be able to create a web browser without paying royalties to you, which stifles competetion and limits user choice.

>>58685944
>copy to JK Rowling and see what happens.
Ahh,but thta's not the same scenario, if the book weren't copyrighted, there would be no issue.

>>58685976
No software patent or copyright is anything close to that general.

>>58685977
GPL exists only because copyright exists.

>>58685898
What about grandma? Lots of normal people get frustrated very easily when they have to learn something all over again (especially when it should otherwise be simple), and you can't always count on Company X to make XOffice N+1, let alone making it just like XOffice N (remember the switch to the Ribbon UI in Word? I know people who still use Office 2003 because of it).

File: Richard-Stallman-640.jpg (43KB, 640x358px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 640x358px

For many of you he might be just a meme. But I have nothing but admiration for RMS.

And that's because he is right. His concept of freedom might mean little for the average joe, but it's really big for society.

If you study modern computing history you will see how free software constantly obliterates proprietary. And once the FOSS alternative becomes better never has the proprietary version recover.

FOSS software is huge:

The php runtime that makes this shitty website usable? open source.
The most used stack of financial analysis Apache Spark? open source.
That Tarkin CGI on the last star wars movie? The renderer they use is open source.

All this things had in the past proprietary alternatives that companies sold for a lot money, all turned to ashes.

Today you find software running on the world's most powerful supercomputers that also powers the phone in your pocket. If he and the rest of the FSF guys hadn't started what they did we would be paying royalties from running servers and using some even shittier mobile OSs.

If that's not a victory, I don't know what is.

>>58686144
>But I have nothing but admiration for RMS.
Me too.

Thank you RMS for the free software movement.
Thank you RMS for GNU GPL.

Microsoft shills will screech at this.

>>58684966
So Grandson can make sure its safe for Grandma so nobody steals secret recipe.
Bump

File: 1485124784053.jpg (52KB, 600x604px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 600x604px

>>58684966
Grandma now trusts that some autist probably has already looked into the source code and would disclose if said word processor also happened to be botnet. Also she knows that if current word processor developer decides to turn the product into botnet or suddenly dies from aids some other fag would probably fork it and she wouldn't have to change her recipe typing habbits. This way current programmer can't grab her by the pussy and she remains stronk independant old layday because she knows the program isn't harmful to her freedoms

>>58684966
>Why should Grandma give a fuck that she can't modify code in the word processor she types up her recipes on and redistribute it on sourceforge?
This is actually where Free Software is much better than "Open Source" software. It's not just about the code. It's about the fact you can use the software for whatever you want and give it to friends, whether it cost money or not. Your freedoms are guaranteed whether you can read through the code yourself or not.

>>58687357
Fuck RMS,I wish I could slit his throat the second I would meet him.

Linux shills will hate me for this.

>>58688939
what do you exactly hate him for though? or is it just being annoyed at his general personality, which I can honestly understand

>>58684966
Today we're going to introduce you to the concept of a 'target audience'

>>58688948
1. His face is the literal face of retardness
2. Because of him, /g/ is pushing the Linux meme down other people's throats. Wake up /g/,not everyone's a rocket scientist and not all people will want to use Linux. (majority of the market is Windows/Mac,go figure)

>>58688984
you're confusing linux and free software

>>58689000
no shit sherlock

This free software shit also includes linux. And I hate free software.

>>58688939
So edgy.
/g/ is dead.

This is what happens when we open the flood gates for wintoddlers and pretend their toddler toy video gaming computers and their relevant gaming OS has anything to do with technology. Turning this place into a babycare fruity toddler gamerbabby hugbox was a terrible mistake.

>>58689042
>Turning this place into a babycare fruity toddler gamerbabby hugbox was a terrible mistake.
/g/ itself is a mistake,lincucks shill

>>58689051
You are a living mistake. If I find you irl I would rip your skull open and squish your brain with bare hands.

>>58684966
Why are you even on this website if you care so much about what normies think?

Genuine question

>>58689056
I really hope you find me. I can't wait to rip your heart and eat it,along with your bones,Nigerian nigger.

>>58689087
Took you a while, sissy wintoddler.

Because he's too dumb, poor, lazy, and socially disconnected to RE binaries, so he has to be a commie and steal the means of production

So yes, first world problems

>WHY DID MY CAR NOT COME WITH A LIFT AND COMPLETE TOOLKIT PLUS A FULL SHOP MANUAL WTF
>I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO PAY A MECHANIC OR DO INCREDIBLY EXPENSIVE AND DIFFICULT WORK MYSELF
>WHY CANT I CFLAGS=TURBO?

>>58689096
>linux shills defending this hard
I hope you all die of explosive diarrhea and cardiac arrest.

>>58689124
>RE binaries
when you don't know what you're talking about so you spout a new term you learn even though it doesn't make sense in context

>>58689141
I can call whatsits whatever I so desire and recompile the english language so to speak as however one so wants as long as you understand them words, you pedantic fuckshit.

File: 1483744950139.jpg (235KB, 866x1300px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 866x1300px

>>58689124
>>58689170
>Mad wincuckold defending his computer illiteracy
Never gets old

>>58689203
Computer illiteracy is the foundation of the free software movement.

>Woah, this is hard and time consuming! Just give us the source code, that's a lot easier!

File: 1484440733625.jpg (41KB, 386x372px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 386x372px

>>58689051
>>58689056
>>58689087
>>58689096
>>58689124
>>58689137
>>58689170
>>58689219
where do they even come from ?

>>58689238
From your mom's ass,fuckwad.

>My grandma can't code improvements
>Therefore the entire concept of FLOSS is garbage

Funnily enough, your grandma's stupidity has absolutely nothing to do with this. The point is, people who CAN make positive changes and contributions have the ability to do so if the software is free. The end users can then experience using software which has been subject to audits and oversight rather than locked behind doors.

monitoring this bait

This thread is full of pajeets trying to shill for microsoft.