[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / arepa / ausneets / just / pinoy / s8s / vg / vichan / vor ]

# /gnussr/ - Liberated Software

Name Email Select/drop/paste files here (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.) * = required field [▶ Show post options & limits]Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag NoneDOSbox Do not bump(you can also write sage in the email field)Spoiler images(this replaces the thumbnails of your images with question marks) Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, swf, pdfMax filesize is 16 MB.Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000. You may upload 5 per post.

No.100

How can authoritarian people like tankies even go on this board?

The Free Software comunity is libertarian and anarchist in nature.

No.101

Because we will assimilate you

No.103

Speaking as a tankie, software is post-scarcity, so it really is like communism. That's probably why anarchists think free software is theirs. But actually, the GPL appeals to me because it is pretty authoritarian. It literally fucking forces you to share. I think that the proletarian state of the future should automatically apply the GPL to all forms of software and IP.

No.112

>>100

>anarchical vs authoritarian

>Gentoo vs Arch

Meaningless bullshit

No.114

>>103

I think the GPL exists to breed a culture that likes to share. It's just using copyright against itself. Without govt, I'd be "stealing" software all day

No.138

>>112

>>anarchical vs authoritarian

>Meaningless bullshit

Not when anarchists keep fucking things up.

No.141

File: aec2f0bdd50cd8a⋯.jpg (57.46 KB, 960x626, 480:313, jpeg.jpg)

>>138

Haha those incompetent anarchists, why can't they achieve anything?

No.145

It's quite interesting how large parts of reactionary tech culture still value and participate in Free software. I was wondering how this came to be, and I think it might be a result of a certain american way of thinking, that has spread to the international tech culture through the internet.

When you encounter technology, and as you learn more about technology, you are confronted with the contradictions and political issues pretty quickly. Intellectual property seems especially silly when there's no cost to reproduction, laws that use arbitrary language to describe human behavior in the social seem pretty silly when the entirety of your behavior can be technologically described, government oversight and control seems undemocratic and misunderstood.

All of these problems are problems that anybody who spends just a bit of time working with and learning about technology encounters, and all of these problems are problems that are obviously solved by Free software and decentralization, and Free software is actively presented as the solution to these problems.

This means that even the most reactionary retard who understands Free software are in support of it.

So why is it that hard-right libertarianism and "anarcho"-capitalism is so favoured among these techies?

My own theory is that it's a result of two american doctrines:

1. The doctrine of freedom being freedom from government intrusion. (Negative freedom)

2. The doctrine of freedom being freedom to own property.

While these two ideas very obviously are part of liberal ideology in the entire west, only in America is there this borderline pathological obsession with freedom as a term.

This means that when something shows up, that solves the problem through giving people freedom - freedom as liberation - it's inevitably, through the culture of freedom, associated with this thinking. And for many techies of the world, the political problems of technology was their introduction to political thinking in general.

The line of thought then goes:

>The problems of technology seems to be solved through liberation and freedom.

>This seems to be a coherent political world view.

>Problems of other kinds must be able to be solved through the same principles.

Of course what they misunderstand in this case is the nature of this liberation.

The question then becomes, was this view of negative freedom from government the same that the Free Software Foundation had in mind? Or did it spring naturally from the already existing ideologies of suburban America?

Has anybody here read Bookchin? I know he has a term 'liberatory technology', can we use that thinking here? Is his thinking useful to presenting a view of the liberatory nature of technology, as truly liberatory?

How do we talk about this technological liberation, in a manner so as to separate it from liberal liberation?

No.149

>>141

>Smashies accusing real Marxists of smashing things

the ironing

No.186

>>103

apt-get install anarchists-btfo

No.188

>>141

>when you learn "history" from memes

No.199

No.311

>>103

>fucking forces you to share

>forces you

No, not at all. If you use custom version of i.e. tomahawk, you don't have to share anything. Unless you want other people to use it, or they want to use it. Then you HAVE TO. It's beneficial to everybody.

No.315

>>311

>or they want to use it

The GPL doesn't require you to let anyone else use your version, even if they really want to. It only requires that if you do give them a copy, you also give them a copy of the preferred form for modification (usually the source code, can be on request) plus the rights to do things with it.

No.316

>>315

I didnt say you HAVE TO provide source if they request it, but if you want your custom version to be used by others, you have to provide changed source code.

No.340

>>311

>>315

Don't forget the AGPL which is even stronger.

No.342

>>316

I don't understand. What did you mean by "or they want to use it"?

No.349

>>342

They want to use it and you are willing to share, I mean, you tell friends you make your own version of program and they say "that's great, lem'me use it" so you give them source, if u are willing to, but ypu can always say as along as they are not affected anyhow by that modified program.

No.350

>>349

I must have type it drunk.

You can always say no, if you don't want to share, as long as the program doesn't affrect them anyhow.

No.463

>>100

No.468

>>100

>The Free Software comunity is libertarian and anarchist in nature.

Richard Stallman (pbuh) is a statist, tho.

No.469

>>141

You have to be seriously retarded to even remotely consider that pic true.

No.475

It's really cowardly how they keep naming all the spaces in specifically tankie terms.

'bunkerchan'

'gnussr'

No.477

>>475

We need a more neutral board.

No.479

>>114

Without the GPL, you'd be 'stealing' software binaries (actually just copying numbers, as we both know), but source code would be very hard to come by

No.486

>>103

<post-scarcity

well imagine my shock, commies don't understand real science and instead subtitute it for their "dialectical science", lysenkoism, baseless hismat, flawed smith/ricardian theory of profit, and a mish mash of idealist and materialist points.

<forces you

oof

No.530

>>486

What didn't he/she understand about real science and when did they advocate "lysenkoism, baseless hismat, flawed smith/ricardian theory of profit, and a mish mash of idealist and materialist points."?

No.553

>>100 (me)

Man have my views changed to being more sympathetic to them.

I've take my statement in OP back, tankies are okay, just don't be autistic and sectarian like I was.

No.554

>>112

Really gentoo & arch << (libre-)gentoo & parabola

No.557

>>554

Really gentoo is shit.

Arch is sorta okay, so is parabola.

No.561

>>557

>t. Arch fanboy

No.563

>>561

>sorta okay

>fanboy

Okay.