You may be running non-free programs

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html

In the free software community, the idea that non-free programs mistreat their users is familiar. Some of us refuse entirely to install proprietary software, and many others consider non-freedom a strike against the program. Many users are aware that this issue applies to the plug-ins that browsers offer to install, since they can be free or non-free.

Why the fuck does he keep pretending like the GNU philopsophy has a large following? "Some of us" "many others" "Many users". Ever wonder why everything about the GNU project is attributed to you RMS? Because that's the entire truth. You are the only fucking contributor.

The GPL is a proprietary license. You are running non-free programs, RMS.

Fuck, I RAGED. Stallman is the best troll ever.

If this faggot had his way, there would be no innovation in anything except through ``standards committees'' like W3C that spend years holding their cocks and then releasing bloated shit like XML Schema.

He has a point.

He has no cock.

>>3
BSD-style licenses are not an evolutionarily stable strategy. In the long run, GPL is the freest option.

>>7
GNU-style licenses do not make my company money.  In the long run, a closed-source commercial package is the freest option.

>>7
How so? I don't see any of the BSD operating systems becoming proprietary anytime soon.

>>7
this license is freer than the GPL:
Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any
purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that you grant this
same permission to anyone you distribute it to without any additional
restrictions.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES
WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR
ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES
WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN
ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF
OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.

>>10
Well, we'll just redefine free until that's no longer true. It's the GNU_/Linux way!

>>7
any license that takes more than 1 minute to read is not a free software license.

>>10
This license is freer:
Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted
to anyone.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/14/facebook
Stallman had it in his repertoire of links on gnu.org.

Seriously, he's got some good troll backup. I'd avoid him if I were you; he'll start protesting you.

>>14
I actually read that article linked from _{www.stallman.org}. Facebook, like all social networking sites--are crap anyway.

>>9
http://www.apple.com/

>>2
Did you know that the FSF associate membership numbers are growing at a steady rate every year? I would postulate that this growth rate also applies to the number of people who agree with RMS (about his philosophy to software freedom) and are not associate members. The numbers may be an insignificant percentage compared to the people that don't agree with him (>99%:1%), but I would contend that the number is high enough to make the qualifier of "many" to be accurate.

>>8
You are a failure at business, sales and marketing if you cannot make money with free software. My small computer software company (2 y.o.) caters to small-mid size businesses in Australia. My business gets us (the employees) enough revenue and profit to do well enough through this recession. In all of my business affairs, I have never once subjected anybody out of their right to tinker and share the software I convey to them.

>>11
When we refer to freedom in software, we are talking about the right to sovereignty and the right to live as an upstanding citizen. When we accept accept proprietary software, we lose our right to either one of these freedoms and so, proprietary software isn't acceptable for us that value freedom. Liberally licensed free software is acceptable as is but it also has the danger of being forked and transformed into proprietary software.

Javascript specification is open and free for anyone to implement

>>16
He is referring to the upstream BSD systems and not the downstream BSD systems. The upstream BSD systems will always remain free.

When we accept accept proprietary software, we lose our right to either one of these freedoms and so, proprietary software isn't acceptable for us that value freedom. Liberally licensed free software is acceptable as is but it also has the danger of being forked and transformed into proprietary software.
"proprietary software is bad! free software is good, but allows proprietary forks! let's make our own proprietary license, call it free, and spam it all over the internet until everyone accepts our twisted definition of free!"

>>18
It's not the specification that's the problem, there are free JS implementations around. The point is about educating people about software that seems to have freedom but are actually proprietary software. Many programs written in Javascript are proprietary software by virtue of not granting the recipient of the software their free software rights.

>>20
Please learn to comprehend.
When we refer to freedom in software, we are talking about the right to sovereignty and the right to live as an upstanding citizen.

>>17
You do not have a software company, you have a consultancy.

>>22
well then respect other people's sovereignty and right to live as upstanding citizens instead of spamming them until they acquiesce to your dishonest redefinition of common words.

>>23
My company does more than just consultation. The services we have successfully provided include: software consultation, guarantees and warantees to free software, software modification, and systems analysis and design.

My big ticket services are the software guarantees and warantees: my customers pay me big money to guarantee that my software works as intended.

>>24
The point is that in order for a citizen to have freedom:
1. The citizen must have their right to sovereignty
2. The citizen must have their right to live as an upstanding citizen

When upstanding citizens choose to accept proprietary software:
1. The citizen relinquishes their right to sovereignty to the master of the proprietary software
2. The citizen relinquishes their right to live as an upstanding citizen to the master of the proprietary software.

We define free software in such a way as to allow users their freedom. We define proprietary software in such a ways as to let users know that they don't have freedom.

>>26
when you redefine words like that you take away people's sovereignty without their consent, which is even worse. stop doing that.

>>17
Ratio of two percentages
I giggled.

>>27
Please teach me so I would understand your point. We define that citizens have freedom when they have all the following rights.
Freedom 0: The right to run software as the user wishes
Freedom 1: The right to tinker with software as the user wishes
Freedom 2: The right to be a good citizen (share unmodified copies of software)
Freedom 3: The right to contribute to the community (share modified copies of software)

Please teach me how this definition takes away a person's sovereignty.

>>28
So I'm high right now. Forgive me for messing that up.

>>24
Richard M. Stallman doesn't make "dishonest redefinition of common words" as you claim, attacking him personally rather than focusing on his message (a typical behavior of proprietary software shills claiming to be "BSD fans"). He only chooses to avoid confusing words and phrases, but it's only an exercise in clarity meant to better his literary style; and to make the truth more self-obvious for the, shall we say, less ``bright'' among yourselves. Please read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html for details.

>>29
it doesn't allow people to share modified copies of software under free licenses.

>>31
So you think making people stupid is a good thing?

>>32
What does that mean? According to this definition, a user is free when they have ALL four liberties. There isn't anything in this definiton that doesn't allow people to share modified copies of software under free licenses.

>>33
People are inherently stupid. How could proprietary software be so prevalent otherwise?

>>33
Please explain yourself so that we understand what you mean.

>>33
Good job, you've just taken what >>31 said completely out of context. Re-read and try again.

>>35
So making them more stupid and shoving ``free" proprietary software down their throats is going to make things better?

>>35
While people are inherently stupid, stupidity doesn't explain why proprietary software is prevalent. Proprietary software is prevalent because people are ignorant of it or people are amoral about the issues of freedom. Think of Linus Torvalds, this person isn't stupid and yet, he doesn't care for politics. Come to think of, it is pretty stupid to disregard and ignore the current political situation.

>>34
that definition doesn't guarantee them the right to share modified copies under free licenses. that's the thing that makes the GPL a proprietary license and not a real free license.
see >>10 for an example of a real free copyleft license.