Open Source

31717 readers

118 users here now

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Rules

Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

Cloak@lemmy.ml

kevincox@lemmy.ml

CrypticCoffee@lemmy.ml

Lettuceeatlettuce@lemmy.ml

Why is GrapheneOS against GNU? (grapheneos.social)

submitted 4 months ago by lunar_dust_222@sh.itjust.works to c/opensource@lemmy.ml

52 comments fedilink hide all child comments

They say that GNU is spreading misinformation and "stop getting info from charlatans"?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] ssm@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

This is begging the question, there's nothing confusing or incorrect about what GrapheneOS posted. GNU/FSF is a cult that has always been making their own arbitrary rules for what qualifies and what does not qualify as free software (I am not saying the OSI is any better in that regard, Raymond is a clown).

I highly suggest reading this mailing list thread where RMS fails to understand copyright law and thinks you can relicense permissive code to GPL, and refuses to call OpenBSD free because the ports system can be used to build a few pieces of non-free software, even though no parts of the ports tree itself are non-free (wait until he hears you can download Windows ISOs off of a web browser).

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 16 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

100% agreed with you.

We do, however, need zealots in the ecosystem, they serve a purpose, we just can't let perfect be the enemy of good when it comes to usability, security, and privacy.

Seems the real issue is that GrapheneOS makes it possible to get google play installed via their sandboxing, that people take offence to calling it FOSS software...

Sure, fair enough, makes sense, they just need to fork the project and maintain the fork and don't include the sandboxing. It's a open code base (because its FOSS, heh) they can do whatever they want to it.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 7 points 4 months ago

We do, however, need zealots in the ecosystem

This is a very important point. I left the rest of the sentence not because it's not important but because most people understand that part.

[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 15 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Since I consider non-free software to be unethical and antisocial, I think it would be wrong for me to recommend it to others.

OpenBSD does not contain non-free software (though I am not sure whether it contains any non-free firmware blobs). However, its ports system does suggest non-free programs, or at least so I was told when I looked for some BSD variant that I could recommend. I therefore exercise my freedom of speech by not including OpenBSD in the list of systems that I recommend to the public.

my god. Yeah, he's technically correct, but he's so self righteous about it. I think of PopOS, probably the best OS I've ever used. However when you open the shop, he would just pass out because they shock recommend discord and others.

But that's what people want. If you open the shop and don't see the discord app, people would be frustrated. It's there because people use it. Hell I use it. But according to him even the act of just suggesting something closed source, even if people want it, is .... "unethical"?

Like dude, I love OSS a lot, more than the average, but just suggesting a download, (probably because it's by the most popular), I think is a far cry from "unethical".

[–] vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 4 months ago

Raymond is a fucking incel. His site is a collection of cringe and “yes, this entry here, officer”.