From: "J.B. Nicholson" <jbn@forestfield.org>
To: libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
Subject: Re: Fw: Congratulations St. iGNUcius
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2023 19:13:28 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7a35e9ff-f12b-4c19-b53d-5fccc4a67832@forestfield.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <uAu7CLzHVOg7k35JHm706JK87FLtOGzO4S6RAf78MzeUrxkrDFA9nFGaetsdwXcPyu-vXGh0jyia0t1NSWgjZmA20lWo9xeB4vvA3OL6GLE=@proton.me>
Jacob Hrbek via libreplanet-discuss wrote:
> I hate that the FSF is a major bad actor when it comes to an open-source hardware
> as it's actively forcing proprietary garbage on me and complicating my life.
>
> There is really not much to celebrate if you then work on sabotaging all the good
> work you've done for the computer science.
I'd like to understand what you're saying in order to foster a productive and
understanding conversation, but it's hard to understand what you're referring to
without clear examples of what you're talking about, preferably with links to where I
find information to back up the claims made and preferably without the name-calling.
I see no such evidence in your post. Would you be willing to post in this way to this
mailing list?
Perhaps you didn't understand that the Free Software Foundation (FSF) doesn't
represent "open source" anything. These two groups have different philosophies that
sometimes say diametrically opposed things even as the two groups approve of almost
the same set of licenses. https://www.fsf.org/philosophy says that the FSF is
"currently reorganizing our philosophy section" but the essay I was looking for, "Why
Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software" is at
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html instead. That essay
makes it clear that:
> The terms “free software” and “open source” stand for almost the same range of
> programs. However, they say deeply different things about those programs, based on
> different values.
I didn't followup to all of the mailing lists you posted this response to because I
don't think all of those mailing lists are appropriate for this discussion. I picked
the one list of the set where I thought where such an evidence-based discussion could
be had.
_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-09-29 21:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <VEPBwn78LESI3Os4Nd0Fv62__96cqTv6VYoH-mw5ruI__bfE8_SVCvfLWotZDV5Hi1AKH3Hg4ms5aIPFgeKcS_doDV1QoZV-yWrFu2dBvAI=@proton.me>
2023-09-27 21:20 ` Fw: Congratulations St. iGNUcius Thiago HF Zoroastro via libreplanet-discuss
2023-09-28 15:31 ` Jacob Hrbek via libreplanet-discuss
2023-09-29 0:13 ` J.B. Nicholson [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=7a35e9ff-f12b-4c19-b53d-5fccc4a67832@forestfield.org \
--to=jbn@forestfield.org \
--cc=libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).