•  OrangeSlice   ( @14specks@lemmy.ml ) 
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1211 months ago

        So some people really not grasp that?

        Actually, yes, the original FOSS movement had more right-libertarian roots than anything to the left, although nowadays some might see it as “common ground”.

        • The politics of folks like RMS (personal issues aside) were far above average, but the Free Software Movement was very steeped in liberalism from its onset, and that explains many of of its present shortcomings. Its biggest failing was to believe that Free Software would ultimately win on its merits. In the early days this was understandable, when free software was often playing catch-up to replicate the functionality of established commercial offerings. When the GNU project was just a C compiler you could install on proprietary UNIX systems to dick around with.

          Today though, Free Software is more often than not superior to commercially available offerings, with the exception of some niche industrial segments. But still, Free Software adoption by end users remains incredibly marginal. No matter how many merits Free Software stacks in its favor, the “Year of Linux on the Desktop” never comes. We are still drowning in proprietary iOS and Android phones. The overwhelming majority of PCs still ship with Windows. All of it deliberately engineered to become E-waste in a couple of years.

          Folks, this won’t change unless we take over the factories where these PCs and phones are manufactured.

          •  lntl   ( @lntl@lemmy.ml ) 
            link
            fedilink
            English
            111 months ago

            The idea is that for code to truly be free, you should be able to make it proprietary. If you can’t do that, then it isn’t really free. That’s how I understand the idea anyway

            •  God   ( @god@sh.itjust.works ) 
              link
              fedilink
              English
              311 months ago

              But that’s not being anti, just accepting the possibility of it. Like i consider myself a libertarian and if you wanna make it close source, ok, I may dislike it but I won’t regulate against it. But being anti would imply I would go out of my way to censor your ability to do close source.

              •  lntl   ( @lntl@lemmy.ml ) 
                link
                fedilink
                English
                311 months ago

                It’s a GPL license thing. If you make a derivative work of GPL code, you’re NOT free to do what you want with it. This is where the 'anti come from.

                • There are two parts to this. On one side, you have the “please follow the GPL if you’re using GPL code” – which is really just asking someone to honor a contract, more or less.

                  Then you have people like RMS, who believe that there should not be such a thing as proprietary software. They don’t care if you aren’t using the GPL – no software should be proprietary, period.

    • The man can say what he wants and it’s nothing to do with Linux. And, his gun stance seems fair to me. I think he is an intelligent man, and I think he’s allowed to say his thoughts without some lame arse trying to tie his ideals to the OS. Move on, nothing to see here.

      • This is exactly what I was thinking as well. Why is it so hard for folks to separate what someone creates from the creator? If we found out the person who created, say, the bandaid, was a militant Nazi homophobe who advocated for marriage at the age of 6, should we feel guilty every time we need to cover a cut or scrape?

        Personally, I don’t know much at all about Linus, what he prefers for breakfast, whether he wears slippers in the house or goes barefoot, and so on. He could staunchly advocate that my country do away with its present form of government and declare him dictator for life for all I care.

        I like Linux. I use Linux. It gets the job done. End of story.

      •  altair222   ( @altair222@beehaw.org ) 
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1511 months ago

        you do realize that linux has very political basing in it, right? do you realize that politics is a structure of governance and hence everything the authority on linux has to say will eventually, if not automatically, affect the project?

    •  beepnoise   ( @mFcGlNBcfr@lemmy.ml ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      3011 months ago

      I don’t think the title is good, but I do think it’s notable to some extent. With people having weird, shitty opinions, it’s nice to see someone who is relatively famous in the tech community for having somewhat sane opinions and being vocal about it.

      In my experience, the Linux community has got its own bunch of free speech weirdos who would reject some of these political points (especially the trans position), so I do think in that context it is kind of important.

    •  Andreas   ( @Andreas@feddit.dk ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      811 months ago

      Gloating? Complaining? I thought the FOSS community has matured past “creator’s views = views of everyone who uses their creation”, honestly. And isn’t Linus supporting the Democratic party already well known?

    •  Lilium   ( @Metallinatus@lemmy.ml ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      311 months ago

      Well, there was drama here yesterday about Lemmy’s creator and maintainer being a tankie or whatever and one person trying to say “Lemmy bad” because of that.

      This post doesn’t seem to be here by coincidence.

      •  clumsy_cat   ( @clumsy_cat@beehaw.org ) 
        link
        fedilink
        English
        5
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        This post doesn’t seem to be here by coincidence.

        As the person who posted the original post: i don’t like/trust tankies and them being tankies is one of the reason i deleted my lemmy.ml account.

        My impression is that Linus also doesn’t speak in his post about tankies, but instead i think the word “communist” is equal to some general leftist.

        But i kind of agree, that this post can be seen as “in support of tankies”. hmm.

        my impression is, furthermoore: because the more tankie politics is on lemmygrad.ml, an instance which is easily blocked, it is not that bad / could be worse. I kind of hope instances like beehaw.org have the most users someday, because they are really awesome i think

  •  xenago   ( @xenago@lemmy.ml ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    5311 months ago

    Linus has always been political and principled, I mean he chose the GPL for a reason! Glad to see him state all of this outright though, it only makes me respect him more.

  •  seahorse [Ohio]   ( @seahorse@midwest.social ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    47
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    I half agree with his gun regulation stance. While ideally there would be more caution given to who owns guns that is unfortunately not the world americans have been living in the last 80 years or so. The fascists have guns, lots of them, and I’m not giving mine up while they have them.

    Everything else he said is 100% based.

      •  Andreas   ( @Andreas@feddit.dk ) 
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1111 months ago

        When you’re in power, the fascists are the “morons with a pulse” who don’t get guns, but when they’re in power, YOU’RE the moron with a pulse who loses your ability to defend yourself. The point is to remove the ability of the authorities to decide who gets the right to own weapons, because it can easily be turned against you. Besides, morons obtain weapons illegally all the time. Firearms ownership is illegal in my country (except for licensed use like hunting) but we still have problems with gun violence because of weapons trafficking.

    •  Hexorg   ( @Hexorg@beehaw.org ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1311 months ago

      Yeah the gun law regulators generally ignore the fact that everyone and their grandma already has guns. And those with guns are not willing to do trade in programs.

      I’d like to see better psych eval and requiring to re-license every so often. That should start steering the country in the right direction. Of course I don’t see this happening any time soon.

      •  jiml78   ( @jiml78@lemmy.ml ) 
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1411 months ago

        The US has no chance of passing anything around licensing of firearms in the short term. We can only hope that Gen Z votes all the gun nuts out of office.

        • Not much of that matters if you can’t get 2/3 of the states to get in line with your re-write and we can’t get 2/3 of the people to agree on anything. Also, there is a wide swath of opinion between what you call “gun nuts” and what other people call “common sense laws.” Very few people are arguing that “any moron with a pulse” should have a gun.

        •  The Doctor   ( @drwho@lemmy.ml ) 
          link
          fedilink
          English
          111 months ago

          They can vote against the ammosexuals all they want. Many politicians get money from firearms companies, though, on both sides of the fence, and they all know which side their bread is buttered on.

  •  Trash Panda   ( @raccoon@lemmy.ml ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    4511 months ago

    Hard fisagree. Linux isn’t political. Everyone has an opinion, it’s obvious Linus would too. But I am pretty happy that his opinion is one I personally agree with. Linux can be uaed by anyone though, and nothing stops far right activists (terrorists) from making a distro, which would still be Linux. There’s a heavily religious distro too, but that doesn’t make Linux as a whole religious.

    •  raresbears   ( @raresbears@lemmy.ml ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1411 months ago

      Does that really make it totally apolitical though?. Like obviously it’s not inherently attached to a wide reaching political ideology, but it still is political in the same way that any free software is kind of political.

      • IMO the GPL and similar licences are inherently political, and Linus very intentionally chose to release the Linux kernel under the GPL licence rather than under BSD or a proprietary licence.

      •  Umbrias   ( @Umbrias@beehaw.org ) 
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1211 months ago

        The very concept of free software and open contribution is political. That as a thing doesn’t necessarily exist within every political framework or culture. But that’s the nature of politics, ultimately in some way basically everything can have a political framing, and since politics are essentially “opinions on the way things should be” it’s ultimately inescapable.

        •  Ferk   ( @Ferk@lemmy.ml ) 
          link
          fedilink
          English
          2
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Everything can have a political framing, but that’s not the same as saying that everything is political.

          Only “opinions on the way things should be” are political, and not everything is an opinion.

          Linux is not an opinion, even if you can have an opinion about the role of Linux in society, or about the intent in its creation. You can even say the creation of Linux might have been politically motivated, or that its license was designed with a political purpose (like all licenses are, including the most restrictive and non-free), but that’s not the same as saying that Linux on itself is political.

    • I don’t think we get to use cold reason to determine if something is political or not, just like a dictionary doesn’t control the meaning of a word, nor does a small group of ants decide what the colony does next. If Linus came out as a right wing extremist, it wouldn’t matter how apolitical the linux source code is, people would decide to distance themselves from him and everything he represents. Something is political the moment a society perceives it as relevant to their politics.

    • There’s a heavily religious distro too, but that doesn’t make Linux as a whole religious.

      More than one! There’s Ubuntu Christian Edition (if I had to guess, that’s probably the most popular one), Computers4Christians, there used to be Jesux (using the Christian Software Public License), Jewbuntu, Bodhi Linux, and (jokingly, but real) Kubuntu Satanic Edition at the very least.

      And, while not Linux, I have to mention TempleOS, the open source Christian OS designed by a schizophrenic who claims it was written to God’s specifications. It was written in HolyC and was just so out of place in 2005 when it was released.

      None of this matters in the context of your comment. I just wanted to throw it out there because I find the whole thing fascinating.

  •  Generator   ( @Generator@lemmy.pt ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    4211 months ago

    Maybe because he’s not “American” and comes from a country with regulations like the rest of the world, and people care when they vote to make things work.

    And like most of the rest of the world, there are more than two political parties, and is not a drama show.

    •  Andreas   ( @Andreas@feddit.dk ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      3311 months ago

      He has American citizenship and lives in America, he’s talking about America here. And I promise you that other countries, yes even those in the magical fantasy land of Europe, also have lots of political drama despite having more than two parties in the government (They tend to form alliances based on left/right and split into two blocks anyway).

  •  Puls3   ( @Puls3@lemmy.ml ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    3911 months ago

    One great thing about about software is you don’t have to agree with or care about what the creators thoughts and beliefs are, software is at the end of the day just software.

    Doesn’t get any less political than that.

    • I create software by myself and disagree. First it’s very political where and for whom I choose to develop software. Second, software is always made for a purpose and the purpose can be indeed (and is) very often linked to political or social cause. E.g. a software which only purpose is to harm people, say for controlling mass destruction weapons is in my point of view a very political software

      •  Puls3   ( @Puls3@lemmy.ml ) 
        link
        fedilink
        English
        611 months ago

        software is always made for a purpose and the purpose can be indeed (and is) very often linked to political or social cause

        Its not though, typically software exists to serve a basic function at its core, and it could be used or contributed to by anyone for any number of things.

        • You are thinking of software as if it exists in a vacuum. Software that is libre is a political statement. Software that is proprietary is also a political statement. Lemmy choosing to be decentralized/federated/interoperable is also a conscious political decision just as Apple chose to create its own proprietary ecosystem instead of caring about interoperability.

          •  Ferk   ( @Ferk@lemmy.ml ) 
            link
            fedilink
            English
            10
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            You can grow potatoes for political reasons too. Everything a human being does might be politically motivated, but that doesn’t mean potatoes are political.

            Anyone can take that same software, that was created as a particular political statement, and use it for the completelly opposite political reasons to make a completelly different political statement. Just the same way as many have used songs in contexts that are completelly politically opposite to what the original author of the song intended.

            In the end, the only thing that’s political is the goal/purpose/motivation of an action, not the result of the action. No piece of software/hardware/thing is political when you dettach the artist from the art and just see it for what it is, regardless of what the author might have wanted you to see it as.

    •  honk   ( @honk@feddit.de ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1211 months ago

      I disagree. Of course it’s political to some degree. It might not really make a difference whatever a software’s authors stance on gun control is as it’s not directly related to the software. But of course the political beliefs of a person might influence the product itself when it’s more related like for example the licensing. FOSS software enables the user of a software to effectively maintain ownership of their own device which is 100% a political thing.

      •  Puls3   ( @Puls3@lemmy.ml ) 
        link
        fedilink
        English
        711 months ago

        FOSS software enables the user of a software to effectively maintain ownership of their own device which is 100% a political thing.

        That’s an entirely different domain of politics in my mind, my point was there’s no reason to focus on what divides you from the creator when 9 times out of 10 the software itself is unrelated and contributed to by thousands that all have differing opinions on the same topic.

        No need to try and find issues where there aren’t any.