Microsoft may <3 Linux but they're still lobbying against user rights / open source

Originally Posted by jazzy_mood Well, if for some reason the State authorities knew they had accessed that information illegally

It was sold to them legally. It's not a legal problem, as there is no law against it. Perhaps it would be illegal under GDPR, but I don't think we want to try to get that here-- Lobbyists will just gut the protection and turn it into more problems.

It is a different kind of problem-- like starving isn't a legal problem. Stupidity isn't a legal problem. When the State is creating or exacerbating the problem, expecting the state to just step in and fix it doesn't make a lot of sense.

Originally Posted by freemedia2018 It was sold to them legally. It's not a legal problem, as there is no law against it. Perhaps it would be illegal under GDPR, but I don't think we want to try to get that here-- Lobbyists will just gut the protection and turn it into more problems. It is a different kind of problem-- like starving isn't a legal problem. Stupidity isn't a legal problem. When the State is creating or exacerbating the problem, expecting the state to just step in and fix it doesn't make a lot of sense.

I see. Is there an option to fully involving the State in these cases? By the way, it's not stupidity, it's a one (or two) corporations against one (lay)man thing (very coward foul game, by the way). My patience levels are starting to drop again, so fully involving the State is not out of the table. Just to play on the safe side after being victim of some particular corporation.

What was overheard: YOU always try to make things worse

I didn't say you were stupid, (or starving.) I gave two examples of problems that are not legal problems.

As long as corporate lobbying can be used to bypass democracy, there's no way to fix the problem with the state-- because the state answers to the people creating the problem (the monopolies.)

The state has to be de-coupled from the problem-- it cannot "help" until then. Meanwhile, the monopoly is still the problem, and the state (any amount of its involvement) is not a realistic solution, because it is actually part of the problem.

Originally Posted by Turbocapitalist They [microsoft] now even have access to the source code in the "private" repositories there.

Then they should, as a show of good faith, publish all their source code to prove that there's no GPL code in there...

...or are they afraid because they have something to hide?

Originally Posted by fido_dogstoyevsky Then they should, as a show of good faith, publish all their source code to prove that there's no GPL code in there...

That would defeat the purpose of the private repos. GitHub was never just about GPL licensed and GPL compatible software, a lot of it is non-free.

Nice thought, but not ethically doable-- privacy violation.

Originally Posted by freemedia2018 That would defeat the purpose of the private repos...

True, but the fox buying the chicken coop also defeats the purpose. I was suggesting that microsoft's code (not anybody else's) should be opened to scrutiny to make sure they're not stealing GPLed* software (with their history they no longer qualify for "innocent until proven guilty").

Originally Posted by freemedia2018 ... Nice thought, but not ethically doable-- privacy violation.

Fits in with my ethics just fine - a company with microsoft's history doesn't rate privacy until they prove they've reformed.

Disclaimer: I'm not a microsoft HATER - I'm as dispassionate about them as I am about any rabid dog.

*Proprietary software isn't my problem, those authors can do their own checking.

Originally Posted by fido_dogstoyevsky Disclaimer: I'm not a microsoft HATER

Hate is just the word Torvalds chose to make it seem unreasonable / purely emotional / even bigoted to dislike the unethical practices of a company he wishes to defend.

His argument was extremely dishonest, and entirely hypocritical in that 1. he calls hating Microsoft itself "a disease" but 2. he calls Facebook "a disease." So basically it's OK to hate Facebook because he thinks they're bad enough, but he doesn't think Microsoft is so if you feel the same way about them that he feels about FB, you're an "extremist." (His own stupid words.)

I'm not a Torvalds fan-- he wrote a great kernel, and still gets the credit for a great operating system that was developed by and for people he smears with his corporate rhetoric. More people should call him on that, but eventually he will step down and be replaced by someone even more unhelpful.

We will miss him, I guarantee it. I don't like him, though we could do a lot worse.

Originally Posted by freemedia2018 I didn't say you were stupid, (or starving.) I gave two examples of problems that are not legal problems. As long as corporate lobbying can be used to bypass democracy, there's no way to fix the problem with the state-- because the state answers to the people creating the problem (the monopolies.) The state has to be de-coupled from the problem-- it cannot "help" until then. Meanwhile, the monopoly is still the problem, and the state (any amount of its involvement) is not a realistic solution, because it is actually part of the problem.

Lobbying is business as usual. Since it's all about lobbying and everyone is "lobbyed", the Linux Foundation has to get a big slice of that lobby in my example above.

Originally Posted by jazzy_mood Lobbying is business as usual. Since it's all about lobbying and everyone is "lobbyed", the Linux Foundation has to get a big slice of that lobby in my example above.

The Linux Foundation isn't what you think it is. Originally, it kind of was, it was founded to keep Linus Torvalds independent financially. Since then it has wandered far away from that goal and he is far down on the totem pole now.

Nowadays the Linux Foundation is a trade association to promote the interests of its members within the Linux community. Note that they got rid of their last community representatives a few years ago. Now M$, Oracle, and VMWare are members and M$ is even on the board. Competitors getting onto the board is such an old trick that it is a sore disappointment that the Foundation allowed it.

For what it's worth, in light of the recent worrisome developments, the site Techrights has started investigating into the Linux Foundation a little. Roy's writing style might be a little difficult for many but the substance is there, even if spread out among several articles and not well summarized.

Originally Posted by Turbocapitalist The Linux Foundation isn't what you think it is. Originally, it kind of was, it was founded to keep Linus Torvalds independent financially. Since then it has wandered far away from that goal and he is far down on the totem pole now. Nowadays the Linux Foundation is a trade association to promote the interests of its members within the Linux community. Note that they got rid of their last community representatives a few years ago. Now M$, Oracle, and VMWare are members and M$ is even on the board. Competitors getting onto the board is such an old trick that it is a sore disappointment that the Foundation allowed it. For what it's worth, in light of the recent worrisome developments, the site Techrights has started investigating into the Linux Foundation a little. Roy's writing style might be a little difficult for many but the substance is there, even if spread out among several articles and not well summarized.

Thanks for the info; didn't know about it. Then it's become another business. A smaller business than MS, but another business all the same.

Quoting an older post of mine from another site:

***

From the 2017 report, the top contributors, in terms of developers and their affiliations, were:

Company/Changes/%

Intel 10,833 13.1% none 6,819 8.2% Red Hat 5,965 7.2% Linaro 4,636 5.6% unknown 3,408 4.1% IBM 3,359 4.1% consultants 2,743 3.3% Samsung 2,633 3.2% SUSE 2,481 3.0% Google 2,477 3.0%

So IBM and Red Hat combined were the second biggest contributors of developer time last year.

Also in the 2017 report:

The total number of patches signed off by Linus Torvalds (207, or 0.3 percent of the total) continues its long-term decline. That reflects the increasing amount of delegation to subsystem maintainers who do the bulk of the patch review and merging.

First 10 companies associated with the most sign offs:

Company/Signoffs/%

Red Hat 16,132 20.6% Intel 7,589 9.7% Linux Foundation 7,110 9.1% Linaro 6,158 7.9% Google 5,750 7.4% none 3,073 3.9% Samsung 2,938 3.8% IBM 2,391 3.1% SUSE 1,879 2.4% AMD 1,838 2.4%

So only 207 of the 7110 Linux Foundation sign offs are by Torvalds.

Forgetting IBM, Red Hat's signing off of kernel patches alone is obviously very significant. More than twice that of the Linux Foundation.

Torvalds' decreasing importance and participation has been apparent for years. Sadly the kernel has outgrown him and is now a mostly corporate enterprise.

Intel are an obvious one due to the primary platform.... but of course, Samsung, google and Linaro all feature heavily as well.

You can almost detect the "tug of war" between the Android devices side and the enterprise server/cloud side. Well, two big parts of the latter just "joined forces" - and one could argue that Intel is certainly part of that "club".

This is all aside from and before you even consider, the make up of the board of directors, technical advisory board and the donors....

***


I have warned about the "corporate creep" in Linux, particularly in the Linux Foundation and the threat from MS, for quite a few years:

https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...0/#post5704964
https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...ml#post5738091
https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...ml#post5807999
https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...ml#post5842394
https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...1/#post5846466
https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...4/#post5913933

This is why, for me at least, the Linux CoC and the publicity surrounding it, had "corporate b/s" written all over it. Those kind of PR stunts almost always occur where there are corporate interests involved. They far less common in traditional free software circles, where freedom of speech and freedom of expression is highly prized. Any restriction on those - i.e. to impose faux politeness and political correctness is just a means of censorship / increasing of influence - utilising "useful idiots" to get the job done.

Originally Posted by cynwulf This is why, for me at least, the Linux CoC and the publicity surrounding it, had "corporate b/s" written all over it. Those kind of PR stunts almost always occur where there are corporate interests involved. They far less common in traditional free software circles, where freedom of speech and freedom of expression is highly prized. Any restriction on those - i.e. to impose faux politeness and political correctness is just a means of censorship / increasing of influence - utilising "useful idiots" to get the job done.

http://techrights.org/2019/04/16/libreplanet-speech/

“Isn’t it true the former campaign manager of the FSF is speaking at LinuxFest Northwest about enforcing Codes of Conduct…?”

In my opinion the FSF is too centralised and vulnerable to this sort of thing, and a lot of its functions (less the funding of free software development and servers/equipment) would be better organised by more autonomous groups, perhaps inspired by Rick Falkvinge's "Swarmwise" book (which can be downloaded free.)

Swarmwise is about building a modern organisation around a purpose. Open source has always hinted at the idea that they are more amenable to heterodoxy, at least in a way that is skin deep. They have the same corporate structure as the FSF but are more open to corporate influence and do more to court (and give voice to) monopolies.

The point here isn't Falkvinge, or even Swarmwise, but the concept of relative organisational autonomy. He uses the real-world example of creating the Pirate Party.

There are so many well-constructed threats to software freedom at this point-- and so much kneecapping with false initiatives like the CoC at LibrePlanet, I don't think the FSF can do it alone. It's not like people aren't throwing enough money, it's that we need more than 5,000 parrots https://trisquel.info/en/wiki/trisqu...ity-guidelines to develop the ideas that will save free software when it's under this many large threats. While the FSF is talking about "making a deal with the devil," it muzzles its own choir with a one way, one-to-many approach to everything. But free software/software freedom (vs. open source) is still far too important to just give up.

The FSF's new Discourse forum is intolerable as well. I've never seen a platform (other than Facebook) more designed towards completely steering a narrative via its interface, design and incentives. It is a nightmare for honest, open communication in a group, regardless of its license-- it's a design problem. We don't need to replace the FSF, we need to upgrade it to bring it up to the current threat level. But as fond as the FSF is of decentralising communication platforms like Twitter and FB, the FSF is a centralised communication platform itself.

From my perspective, the whole situation is damning evidence of the utter failure of FSF/GNU and the confusing array of GPL/LGPL licences - and copyleft licensing and all the complex legal issues it comes encumbered with in general.

Originally Posted by cynwulf From my perspective, the whole situation is damning evidence of the utter failure of FSF/GNU and the confusing array of GPL/LGPL licences - and copyleft licensing and all the complex legal issues it comes encumbered with in general.

I don't think the licenses are the problem-- two things to consider about that: one is that corporate/non-free world has a far more complicated (in terms of the sheer amount of different licenses, and their requirements) license ecosystem, so I'm not sure it's fair (it could be beneficial-- but I'm not sure it's fair to blame the FSF/'s failure for this) to hold free software to a double standard there. But also, open source is more likely accept weirder and more problematic (and a larger number) of licenses, including the one NASA made that isn't a free software license.

I use (VERY) permissive "licensing" for my own code, because it is more accessible to beginners-- they don't have to worry about anything at all-- I tend towards CC0, occasionally I use BSD and like Apple, I only use GPL when it's required. But every serious software developer asks something of those who would redistribute, let alone modify their works. The FSF only asks more than a permissive license, but that's still a lot less than many of the companies endorsed by open source-- who protect some of their code with literal armed raids.

https://torrentfreak.com/microsoft-s...hreats-171113/

In the past, the BSA and Microsoft's accusations have developed into fully-fledged raids, with armed law enforcement officials assisting the software vendor, taking away computers for further ...

On relaxing the matter of copyleft, let's be both practical, and honest. In terms of practical, I would very much like to live to see an era of free software where hobbyist distros like Puppy can be redistributed as ISOs with some kind of GPL "grey area compliance" Amnesty. The trick is doing it in a way that doesn't weaken the GPL against things like Tivo, but doesn't weaken the countless communities (Including Devuan) that don't make it trivial for anybody to simply "download the source iso." Debian is really nice in this regard-- download the source iso, and share that, and you're good.

If you want to see strict GPL compliance in the Devuan world, look at GNUinos. And I'm not accusing of Devuan of violating the GPL, but when I used Debian I distributed computers with both Debian installed and the sources included. Debian made that easy-- most distros make that so difficult that other users simply don't bother (this includes Puppy.) It's not that distro that isn't following the GPL, it's the remix with what I call "grey area compliance." When this gets figured out, it will strengthen free software-- there's a divide between the GPL and most distros in this regard.

I can definitely appreciate the feelings of the BSD community on this-- fsck the GPL, lets redo everything to not need it. That's a sentiment a lot of open source people like to echo, and I really don't blame them.

The truth is that I can appreciate both sides of this argument-- both for the GPL (which I believe serves a purpose) and against (because it's just easier.) So I try to represent both sides of it insomuch as either side has merit.

For simplicity, I am always tempted to run to the permissive side-- not just licensing my code that way, which I already do, but to advocate against the tedium of copyleft as more trouble than it's worth.

The problem with that is, I don't think the evidence weighs far enough against copyleft. Best example: Torvalds has always put stock in GPL 2 for the kernel.

Ask yourself why he didn't use permissive licensing. Unless I have some important detail wrong here, the X11 license already existed prior to the 90s when the Linux kernel work started-- in fact, Linus adopted the GPL later, if quickly.

Ask yourself why people who champion permissive licensing to the exclusion of alternatives (other than the BSD community) don't say "you know what? Forget Linux. The licensing of BSD makes everything so much easier, we should focus on that."

That's the biggest reason why I think copyleft has merit. Though I wouldn't complain if everyone decided to abandon it, I don't think they will, and I'm not even sure they would like the outcome. Of course I think permissive licensing is fine for many things, perhaps even most things-- or I wouldn't use it. I remain unconvinced it is better for absolutely everything-- but it would certainly be easier.

Originally Posted by freemedia2018 I don't think the licenses are the problem-- two things to consider about that: one is that corporate/non-free world has a far more complicated (in terms of the sheer amount of different licenses, and their requirements) license ecosystem, so I'm not sure it's fair (it could be beneficial-- but I'm not sure it's fair to blame the FSF/'s failure for this) to hold free software to a double standard there. But also, open source is more likely accept weirder and more problematic (and a larger number) of licenses, including the one NASA made that isn't a free software license. I use (VERY) permissive "licensing" for my own code, because it is more accessible to beginners-- they don't have to worry about anything at all-- I tend towards CC0, occasionally I use BSD and like Apple, I only use GPL when it's required. But every serious software developer asks something of those who would redistribute, let alone modify their works. The FSF only asks more than a permissive license, but that's still a lot less than many of the companies endorsed by open source-- who protect some of their code with literal armed raids. https://torrentfreak.com/microsoft-s...hreats-171113/ On relaxing the matter of copyleft, let's be both practical, and honest. In terms of practical, I would very much like to live to see an era of free software where hobbyist distros like Puppy can be redistributed as ISOs with some kind of GPL "grey area compliance" Amnesty. The trick is doing it in a way that doesn't weaken the GPL against things like Tivo, but doesn't weaken the countless communities (Including Devuan) that don't make it trivial for anybody to simply "download the source iso." Debian is really nice in this regard-- download the source iso, and share that, and you're good. If you want to see strict GPL compliance in the Devuan world, look at GNUinos. And I'm not accusing of Devuan of violating the GPL, but when I used Debian I distributed computers with both Debian installed and the sources included. Debian made that easy-- most distros make that so difficult that other users simply don't bother (this includes Puppy.) It's not that distro that isn't following the GPL, it's the remix with what I call "grey area compliance." When this gets figured out, it will strengthen free software-- there's a divide between the GPL and most distros in this regard. I can definitely appreciate the feelings of the BSD community on this-- fsck the GPL, lets redo everything to not need it. That's a sentiment a lot of open source people like to echo, and I really don't blame them. The truth is that I can appreciate both sides of this argument-- both for the GPL (which I believe serves a purpose) and against (because it's just easier.) So I try to represent both sides of it insomuch as either side has merit. For simplicity, I am always tempted to run to the permissive side-- not just licensing my code that way, which I already do, but to advocate against the tedium of copyleft as more trouble than it's worth. The problem with that is, I don't think the evidence weighs far enough against copyleft. Best example: Torvalds has always put stock in GPL 2 for the kernel. Ask yourself why he didn't use permissive licensing. Unless I have some important detail wrong here, the X11 license already existed prior to the 90s when the Linux kernel work started-- in fact, Linus adopted the GPL later, if quickly. Ask yourself why people who champion permissive licensing to the exclusion of alternatives (other than the BSD community) don't say "you know what? Forget Linux. The licensing of BSD makes everything so much easier, we should focus on that." That's the biggest reason why I think copyleft has merit. Though I wouldn't complain if everyone decided to abandon it, I don't think they will, and I'm not even sure they would like the outcome. Of course I think permissive licensing is fine for many things, perhaps even most things-- or I wouldn't use it. I remain unconvinced it is better for absolutely everything-- but it would certainly be easier.

I tried some BSDs a few years ago. Gonna try them again to see which one I like the most/feel more comfortable with.