paritybit.ca

Unnamed repository; edit this file 'description' to name the repository.
Log | Files | Refs | README | LICENSE

commit 611f48e85f49c80de177790eb36088617867fb22
parent f3abe3d8bbfdd2b525b0a069b09ca029bf259ec4
Author: Jake Bauer <jbauer@paritybit.ca>
Date:   Mon,  8 Nov 2021 15:03:05 -0500

*

Diffstat:
Mpages/blog/free-software-is-an-abject-failure.md | 26+++++++++++++-------------
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

diff --git a/pages/blog/free-software-is-an-abject-failure.md b/pages/blog/free-software-is-an-abject-failure.md @@ -20,7 +20,8 @@ the Free Software movement and have changed the way I write and license my software as a result. I implore you to genuinely consider what I have written in this post and to approach it with an open mind. Your knee-jerk reaction may be to reject what I am saying as anti-freedom or pro-corporation but that is not -the case. I simply no longer believe in the Free Software movement.</p> +the case. I believe FOSS as a concept is still very important, however I simply +no longer believe in the Free Software movement.</p> Free Software is an abject failure. It may sound like a good concept on its face—especially with the kind of language often used to describe the movement @@ -331,18 +332,17 @@ Note that this only applies to the application you purchased in the App store, as bundled by the App Store. It doesn't prevent you from going to GitHub and modifying the software there, only modifying the software you got from the Apple App Store. Sure, this isn't a good thing and it can be easily argued that this -is unethical because you don't ever own the apps you purchase, however, it is -hardly "censoring free software" given that, as the owner of a Free Software -project, you can freely submit GPL-licensed software to the App Store and Apple -assumes you have the rights to provide them with a non-GPL-licensed build. If -you don't have that ability because you don't own exclusive rights to the -software and it's not feasible for you to get the permission of every -contributor with their name attached to the project, well, that's not Apple's -problem. The FSF words their article like Apple is attacking them when, in -reality, Apple doesn't care what license you've chosen, only that you grant them -the ability to distribute your app under the terms of their EULA. The wording in -that blog post is yet another example of why the FSF are seen as a farce. They -should know better. +is unethical because you don't ever own the apps you purchase, yet it is hardly +"censoring free software" given that, as the owner of a Free Software project, +you can freely submit GPL-licensed software to the App Store and Apple assumes +you have the rights to provide them with a non-GPL-licensed build. If you don't +have that ability because you don't own exclusive rights to the software and +it's not feasible for you to get the permission of every contributor with their +name attached to the project, well, that's not Apple's problem. The FSF words +their article like Apple is attacking them when, in reality, Apple doesn't care +what license you've chosen, only that you grant them the ability to distribute +your app under the terms of their EULA. The wording in that blog post is yet +another example of why the FSF are seen as a farce. They should know better. This reputation of preferring ideological book-thumping over meaningful action is nothing new. Most who are familiar with Linux are likely familiar with