How did the ideology of libre/free software get so politicized?

I’ve noticed advocates for exclusively for libre software and actively discourage simple open source software for not going far enough, also want censorship of not allowing any proprietary software to be mentioned, and don’t allow any critiques of the software they use because it’s libre software so there are no faults or bad designs.

I thoroughly enjoy the code purity of what is labelled as libre software, for license I only like the ISC license for freedom. My attitude is if someone changes my code and doesn’t give back, it does not harm me or injury me in any way.

I also believe libre software can be used for the surveillance of other people, libre software does not be default mean privacy. How network software is configured in systems that other people don’t control, it doesn’t matter if it’s open source when people have no knowledge of other networks configuration.

On the principal of freedom, I do support the right to develop proprietary software. The fact that it exists does not harm anyone who chooses not to use proprietary software.

It seems the die hard libre software crowd, not open source people but the ones who want to live in an only GPLv3+ world can start to live in ther own world, their own bubble, and become disconnected losing perspective that which software other people use is not something that should affect your day in any way. Unless someone is both a network engineer and does infosec or something similiar, they’re not in a position to understand fully appreciate how network protocols matter more than a license and code availability.

  • Lengsel@latte.isnot.coffeeOPEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    I fully reject FSF ad everything they do. I am strogly against Stallman and everything he believe.

    You admit software license only matters in countries that corporations can buy political influence.

    GPLv3 is about ideology forcing people into submssion and some people have turned it into a religion by putting their faith in a license rather than focusing on social structure. It’s about leeching, not protecting. By you advocating for GPLv3+ you are saying freedom can only be protected by tyranny as opposed to working on changing the culture.

    That’s why I always enjoy working with hackers but I dispise crackers.

    Hacking is the root of BSD and hacking helped turn OpenBSD into the most secure operating system. It was done through culture, not a license and punching people in the head to comply with the license. That’s what GPL whackjob retards don’t understand, is the cultural difference.

    “Shut up and hack”, meaning stop complaining and show your work to make the source code better. If you have not submitted a diff, your opinion is pointless.

    • flatbield@beehaw.orgEnglish
      4·
      1 year ago

      Wow! Why are you so threatened by the 4 freedoms? No one is telling you what to do with your own code. It is rather astounding to be condemning the FSF for an agenda when you clearly have one of your own.

      As far as companies and other actors buying power, that is everywhere. IP laws well that more depends on if the country wants to exploit IP or freeload on other people’s stuff. I cannot say I feel strongly either way.

      • Lengsel@latte.isnot.coffeeOPEnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        FSF is a cult looking for adherents to voluntarily submit their ideology of Marxist tyranny.

        I believe in freedom so much that I support the right to develop proprietary software and also ooen source software. While I may choose to run OpenBSD and FreeBSD, I am ok to help fix a Windows problem.

        You a lying by calling them “4 freedoms” similiar to how Islamists, not muslims, but Islamists that say there is freedom in Islam but also advocate for destroying any person who go against Islam.

        Stallman and FSF are leeches, not innovators.

        • flatbield@beehaw.orgEnglish
          2·
          1 year ago

          So your so much into freedom that you think that others should not have the freedom to choose the licenses they use on their code and similarly users to decide what code they run in part based on the license? I am not sure your talking anything about freedom.

          • Lengsel@latte.isnot.coffeeOPEnglish
            1·
            1 year ago

            Which part are you calling a hot take?

            You can disagree with everything I said, I hope you would have your own reasoning for disagreeing.

    • frosty@beehaw.orgEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      If you have not submitted a diff, your opinion is pointless.

      Please submit your diffs for our consideration so we can decide whether to take your opinions seriously.