4 ms·

The first part is rather pertinent. Android is precisely bad because it contains very little of GNU, which allows Google to develop the OS on an Apache license,

by devcpp 11y ago

The first part is rather pertinent. Android is precisely bad because it contains very little of GNU, which allows Google to develop the OS on an Apache license, and is the root of our closed-source Android problem. See https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/android-and-users-freedom.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/android-and-users-freedom.htm... The second part is also problematic, first because it's inaccurate (MIT- and BSD-licensed software is also open source but not free software i.e copyleft, which is bad), and second because it misses the point of free software: allowing others to use your work without contributing back is is very comparable to the right to enslave. So free software says that software being free is more important than people being free to do what they want with it. Much like we generally think that people being free is more important than others being free to do what they want to their neighbors. So it's only petty if you're not accustomed to these ideas, which you are supposed to be anyway if you go through the effort of reading these rules. That's why this label exists after all: so you don't have to give it as much thought as these people did.

Sanddancer 11y ago
MIT/BSD are free software though; Open Source adds licenses that allow viewing the source, but have various restrictions on redistribution. They're just not copyleft. Regarding Android, Google provides the source, and there was nothing precluding them from using something like DirectFB instead to build android on. With such a system, you'd end up with something that looks a lot like gtk/gnome, which "...is licensed using the LGPL license, so you can develop open software, free software, or even commercial non-free software using GTK" [1]. Additionally, it makes for awkward copy. Made with GNU/Linux can be mentally parsed a few different ways; it could mean they're joined, or could mean an either or. Furthermore, the FSF shows their pettiness in other ways, such as how they cram GNU/ into the names of Linux distributions that don't use it [2]. Their actions on this front just end up feeling petty and petulant. [1] https://developer.gnome.org/gtk-tutorial/stable/c24.html https://developer.gnome.org/gtk-tutorial/stable/c24.html [2] http://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html http://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html

by devcpp 11y ago

Sanddancer 11y ago

MIT/BSD are free software though; Open Source adds licenses that allow viewing the source, but have various restrictions on redistribution. They're just not copyleft. Regarding Android, Google provides the source, and there was nothing precluding them from using something like DirectFB instead to build android on. With such a system, you'd end up with something that looks a lot like gtk/gnome, which "...is licensed using the LGPL license, so you can develop open software, free software, or even commercial non-free software using GTK" [1]. Additionally, it makes for awkward copy. Made with GNU/Linux can be mentally parsed a few different ways; it could mean they're joined, or could mean an either or. Furthermore, the FSF shows their pettiness in other ways, such as how they cram GNU/ into the names of Linux distributions that don't use it [2]. Their actions on this front just end up feeling petty and petulant. [1] https://developer.gnome.org/gtk-tutorial/stable/c24.html https://developer.gnome.org/gtk-tutorial/stable/c24.html [2] http://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html http://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html