• hedgehog@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    26 days ago

    First, you’re acting like the decision was made by Linus or another member of the team and that they weren’t following the law.

    Second, even if that weren’t the case, it’s still completely free. Unless you can name one of the following freedoms that was impacted by those actions:

    • Freedom 0: The freedom to use the program for any purpose.
    • Freedom 1: The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish.
    • Freedom 2: The freedom to redistribute and make copies so you can help your neighbor.
    • Freedom 3: The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements (and modified versions in general) to the public, so that the whole community benefits.
    • merthyr1831@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      26 days ago

      All of those freedoms were directly impacted bozo.

      And as for “Linus didn’t do it”, not only did they choose to comply with an order that directly violated the GPL, but in doing so he then followed up by gloating about Russian maintainers who have worked diligently on the kernel for years for the betterment of open software AND Linus’ paycheck.

      Calling your former volunteer contributors bots and state assets because of their home country is just straight up racist, especially when the only evidence of state-sponsored tampering in the Kernel has come from American institutions (that we even know of).

      • hedgehog@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        26 days ago

        Literally none of those freedoms were impacted. Everyone is still free to use the program as they wish, fork it, make changes, etc… Linux doesn’t have a new license that says “anyone but Russians” can use it.

        he then followed up by gloating about Russian maintainers

        How did he gloat? He explained the change. If your complaint is that he was abrasive, I feel like you’re not familiar with Linus.

        Ok, lots of Russian trolls out and about.
        
        It's entirely clear why the change was done, it's not getting
        reverted, and using multiple random anonymous accounts to try to
        "grass root" it by Russian troll factories isn't going to change
        anything.
        
        And FYI for the actual innocent bystanders who aren't troll farm
        accounts - the "various compliance requirements" are not just a US
        thing.
        
        If you haven't heard of Russian sanctions yet, you should try to read
        the news some day.  And by "news", I don't mean Russian
        state-sponsored spam.
        
        As to sending me a revert patch - please use whatever mush you call
        brains. I'm Finnish. Did you think I'd be *supporting* Russian
        aggression? Apparently it's not just lack of real news, it's lack of
        history knowledge too.
        

        Sounds a lot more like he’s frustrated than delighted to me.

        Calling your former volunteer contributors bots

        He didn’t call the contributors bots.

        He called the people submitting reverts and complaining about those maintainers, who weren’t contributors themselves, “troll farm accounts.”

        and state assets because of their home country

        When did he call anyone a state asset? To be clear, being a troll or a paid actor doesn’t make you someone’s property.

        He also explained that this was a legal matter:

        > Again -- are you under any sort of NDA not to even refer to a list of
        > these countries?
        
        No, but I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not going to go into the details that
        I - and other maintainers - were told by lawyers.
        
        I'm also not going to start discussing legal issues with random
        internet people who I seriously suspect are paid actors and/or have
        been riled up by them.
        
        • ProfessorOwl_PhD [any]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          24 days ago

          To be clear, being a troll or a paid actor doesn’t make you someone’s property.

          Ok, I give up, I have no idea if you’re doing a bit. Like I felt kinda confident you were serious, but this leaves me floundering. Purposely obtuse because you’ve talked yourself into such a stupid corner, or just that incredibly obtuse that you unironically think asset means property? Absolutely no way to tell which one it is.

          • hedgehog@ttrpg.network
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            24 days ago

            Before I reply to your comment, I’d like to share this link. It didn’t change any of my existing understanding because Linus’s comment already made it clear that this was out of their hands, but maybe it’ll help clarify something for you.

            I realize now that this comment on that post was made before this one (“What’s free about delisting maintainers based on their country of residence?”) by the same person. It’s disingenuous for someone to act like this is about “country of residence” when they already engaged with a post clarifying that it’s because of sanctions against specific companies.

            that you unironically think asset means property

            I unironically think that because it does mean that:

            1. assets plural

            a. the property of a deceased person subject by law to the payment of his or her debts and legacies

            b. the entire property of a person, association, corporation, or estate applicable or subject to the payment of debts

            1. ADVANTAGERESOURCE

            a. an item of value owned

            b. assets plural the items on a balance sheet showing the book value of property owned

            When I do a search for “state asset,” the results I get are all related to property, resources, etc., things that belong to and can be exploited by the state - for example https://www.epa.gov/dwcapacity/state-asset-management-initiatives-documents

            Searching for “asset” specifically I see a tertiary definition reading “A spy working in his or her own country and controlled by the enemy” as well as the wikipedia definition, but that still means “spy,” not “paid lobbyist.”

            just that incredibly obtuse

            I’d apologize for not being well versed enough in counter-intelligence lingo to properly interpret the comment, but even with a proper interpretation, the comment I replied to was still incoherent, so I’m not really sure what you expect here.

            It feels weird to say that it was incredibly obtuse of me to not spend more time trying to figure out what someone meant when they were, as far as I can tell just mad that Linus and other Linux maintainers didn’t ignore what their attorneys advised, regardless of what impact that might have had on them personally, and spouting a bunch of nonsense as a result.

            Maybe I’m wrong, though. If so, would you care to explain how this was a violation of the GPL and/or how all of the 4 freedoms I listed were violated?

            • ProfessorOwl_PhD [any]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              24 days ago
              1. assets plural

              a. the property of a deceased person subject by law to the payment of his or her debts and legacies

              b. the entire property of a person, association, corporation, or estate applicable or subject to the payment of debts

              1. ADVANTAGE, RESOURCE

              a. an item of value owned

              b. assets plural the items on a balance sheet showing the book value of property owned

              Hey now, something strange is going on here - see, when I visit that page, there aren’t just 3 items. Now, you wouldn’t be selectively ignoring parts of your own source to paint a certain narrative, would you? Because the 4th item I see is

              4 : something useful in an effort to foil or defeat an enemy: such as
              a : a piece of military equipment

              b : spy

              I’m sure you simply… overlooked it in your excitement. Now you’re aware though, I’m sure you’ll be happy to correct your comments.

                • ProfessorOwl_PhD [any]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  24 days ago

                  why would i fucking care about the rest of what you have to say, liar? You’re not here arguing in good faith, why would I bother?

                  • hedgehog@ttrpg.network
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    24 days ago
                    1. I was showing that my understanding of the word “asset” was based in fact. The 4th definition wasn’t relevant to that.
                    2. I literally talked about the 4th definition in the next paragraph.

                    If anyone’s operating in bad faith, it’s you. Are you drunk? You’re being an intentionally obtuse pedant and a liar (by your own definition). Try replying once you’ve sobered up, clown. Once you reread and realize how much of a dick you were, I’m sure you’ll apologize - unless I’m right about you being too much of a coward to admit when you’re wrong about something.