/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11000215
Do you people realize that this was organized attack to shut down open source software organizations forever?
Revoking licenses will not help.

>>11000239
>Do you people realize that this was organized attack to shut down open source software organizations forever?
>Revoking licenses will not help.

Yes it will help.

The USA is not the only country in the world, and you still will have the source regardless of legalities. The question is: will you put US law before the free software ideals.

Free Software does not rest upon US law. It is an attack against it, and was always stated to be so.

>>11000239
>Do you people realize that this was organized attack to shut down open source software organizations forever?

I remember when there was only the FSF, we did not have all these "software" organizations. The projects were run, and ruled, by the men who wrote the software.

Now the men who write the free software are ruled by the women and non-programmers who run the various foundations.

It is better without the organizations.

>>11000267
>It is better without the organizations.
I'm sorry but that's wishful thinking.
Who will enforce the law?
The authors will not able to for sure,most of the them work pro bono to provide the software.
So the law fight is left on the organization/collective of the open software developers to provide this service and defend its ground.
As it is now corporations and governments can do what every they want now with no repercussions.
I warned when Microsoft bought GitHub that they are laying ground for something bigger and I think this recent fiasco is this doing.

>>11000267
>It is better without the organizations.
I'm sorry but that's wishful thinking.
Who will enforce the law?
The authors will not able to for sure,most of the them work pro bono to provide the software.
So the law fight is left on the organization/collective of the open software developers to provide this service and defend its ground.
As it is now corporations and governments can do what every they want now with no repercussions.
I warned when Microsoft bought GitHub that they are laying ground for something bigger and I think this recent fiasco is their doing.

>>11000285
> >It is better without the organizations.
>I'm sorry but that's wishful thinking.

I have been in the free software / opensource movement for quite some time. It was better without the organizations.

It was much better.

So shut you fucking mouth, noob.


>The authors will not able to for sure,most of the them work pro bono to provide the software.
>So the law fight is left on the organization/collective of the open software developers to provide this service and defend its ground.

The "organizations" do not uphold anything. The SFConservancy, for example, simply gives horrible legal advice and stalls for time, telling the claimants to "just wait": until their claim is stale or the statute has run.

They do more harm than good, and it would be legal malpractice if the spokesman was a lawyer (he, BKhun, is not).

I've dealt with them, and am a lawyer.

>>11000285
>I warned when Microsoft bought GitHub that they are laying ground for something bigger and I think this recent fiasco is their doing.

I warned when Debian Women became a thing. This was a long time in coming. But you're too new to notice.

>>11000300
Judging by the reddit spacing you sound more like loud mouth piece of shit than a professional.
Anyways good luck in any future proceeding.

>>11000311
>Judging by the reddit spacing you sound more like loud mouth piece of shit than a professional.
>Anyways good luck in any future proceeding.

Banging on the table is always a valid legal strategy.

>>11000311
>Judging by the reddit spacing

Somehow logically relates to:

>you sound more like loud mouth piece of shit than a professional.
>Anyways good luck in any future proceeding.

We are to believe that adding a space between paragraphs, suggests a lack of rigor in one's legal arguments. Every published decision I've seen, however, seems to include a space between paragraphs. I guess the typesetting of the decisions nullifies them.

You have not refuted any of my points. You simply raised an attack on my typesetting as proof of fallacy. Is this /sci/ ?

>>11000311
>you sound more
You must be hearing things; I haven't spoken a word this whole time.

>>11000285
>I warned when Microsoft bought GitHub that they are laying ground for something bigger and I think this recent fiasco is their doing.
Elaborate on this please.

>>11000215
Wrong board. >>>/g/

RMS got fucked by some twitter SJW and they lied about what he wrote.

Why the fuck is this on /sci/?

>>11000371
>Why the fuck is this on /sci/?
comp/sci/

RMS is a great computer/SCI/entist.

And he was right.

His ouster is the victory of soft social /sci/ences over hard computer /sci/ence

>>11000215
what he said was in bad taste. the fact that the private emails got leaked is bad though, he was just having a private convo

basically all he said was "Minsky didn't know she was an underage prostitute, he was just so retarded that he legit thought an undergrad girl was coming onto him hardcore, since in his mind he is a chad like that." which apparently pisses off the MIT SJW crowd

>>11000371
Stallman is (or was) an MIT scientist

>>11000285
Authors can't enforce free software license, because they don't give rights to authors. Users can, they have rights. Focus on authors is proprietary atavism.

>>11000300
>noob
*sip* ah those were the days
>lawyer
Not science or math bitch fuck off.

>>11000264
>Free Software does not rest upon US law. It is an attack against it, and was always stated to be so.
free software builds upon copyright-law and can't work without it:
>Software using such a license is free software (or free and open-source software) as conferred by the copyright holder. Free-software licenses are applied to software in source code and also binary object-code form, as the copyright law recognizes both forms.

>>11000300
>>11000327
This anon talks much more like a usenet boomer than like a reddit fag. He probably does professionally run shell scripts desu

>>11001982
>free software builds upon copyright-law and can't work without it.

Wrongo, idiot.

Free licenses are revocable by the copyright owner at his will, REGARDLESS of what "rights" the license pro-ports to convey.

Secondly, with all this talk of "enforcement" of "free software licenses"; what damages do you think you will obtain against a violator when you demand zero payment and have not registered your copyright PRIOR to a same-similar violation from said party (and no: free software programmers generally do not register their copyrights).

You're not getting attorney's fees, you're not getting statutory damages, so your only getting contract damages, or profits. So it may very well be 0 dollars (unless profits were made off of your code somehow).

No: Free software does not rely on, nor does it even WORK with copyright law, in a realistic sense.

If you were an attorney you'd understand that.

It is an ATTEMPTED work-around using copyright licensing law against itself (and has always been framed as such)

What it really is, however, is a different way of thinking about software: with the stated goal of abolishing copyright on software (learn your history, retard).

>>11001958
>Not science or math bitch fuck off.
Uses more logic than /sci/ posters .: more math than you.