|
|
|
|
|
|
by Andrew_nenakhov
1899 days ago
|
|
|
Can you explain how technical disagreements about implementation of technology make FSF "on the wrong end of the movement for years"? FSF has valid reasons to be wary of potential threats to software freedoms, and they are extremely dedicated to their mission of providing and protecting said freedoms. Also, you probably do not understand the mindset of this movement. It is not a priority to have the best and shiniest toys and instruments. It is about freedoms, and freedoms only, even despite this way will cause significant inconveniences. It is unacceptable to compromise even the slightest part of freedoms to provide better convenience. This path is not for everybody, but I'm glad someone walks on it, if only to be a safeguard against abuse done by major software vendors. And FSF is very successful in acting as such. > because I won’t deal with their obnoxious contributor agreement process This process is in place for a very valid reason, perfectly explained here [1]. [1]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html |
|
|
I’m pretty sure that almost everyone involved thought that the IR approach was technically superior. This included the people writing the code and the people who wanted to use the code. The FSF’s dedication to the cause caused a bunch of users to move to LLVM, which is not GPL.
As for the copyright assignment, the amount of paperwork and annoyance when I tried to sign up was absurd, so I gave up.