Stallman Calls Valve Games on Linux


Recommended Posts

This has already been covered. You're just looping back over yourself now.

The restrictions make the GPL non-free, with an illusion of freedom that is created by the imposition of external interests over the individual's freedom.

Of course I'm looping: I'm having to break the same simple concepts for you over and over when the best rebuttal you can come up with is "but distributors aren't free" and some gibberish about slavery.

Let me ask you something: won't you be by any chance one of those BSD supporters that go all angry over Linux devs that relicense BSD code, right?

And while we are at it let me ask you another question: do you think that Linux contributors are enslaved? And if so, why did they choose to contribute to Linux and not any of the different BSD variants?

<snipped for brevity>

Insightful, you should post more often :).

I just want to point out that my position on the GPL aligns with both your and Athernars. I don't like it because I don't want to impose restrictions on developers (rather than forcing the code to remain available through all it's iterations), and I see it as a vain attempt to keep the hacker ethos alive by shoving it down people's throats. Personally, I've generally used Creative Commons Attribution (i.e. do what you want, but give me credit where it's due). The free-est license of all with regard to derivative rights is obviously public domain. I was simply trying to explain how the GPL can be perceived as a free license. It uses the same definitions intellectual property as the media organisations do (i.e. copies are still the original product). Personally I see that as bad, but I see it. Other licenses that offer the developer more freedoms do not look at it this way, and consider all the original code, as part of the derived works. It's a fundamental difference that many people don't get. I don't really see what I say as being a strawman argument, but simply a different interpretation of how "software freedom" is described.

Anyway, I was never looking to start all this bickering about the intricacies of the GPL. My initial point was, that regardless of the man himself, the ideas he stands by are valid. Regardless of how socially retarded he is, the ideas behind making source code available and allowing the user to use the software however they want are noble and beneficial for the user, but make a profitable software market difficult (companies like Redhat being the exception rather than the rule), this is where most people (myself included) start distancing themselves from free software ideals, and rightly so.

I agree entirely that the guy is a bad role model for the FOSS movement, because of everything you describe, but I don't think there's anyone here that would disagree that he stands for noble ideals. The things he discuss, like the Valve implementing DRM on Linux, are concerns for free software (DRM exists solely to take freedom from the user), but again people reject FOSS ideas because of who it is that says them. If you look at the underlying point, then he's right. You don't have to agree with his views, or even listen to the guy, but as long as you know the ideas his ranting stems from, you can see where he's coming from.

Honestly I don't pay enough attention to RMS to read his preaching, simply when his discussion makes it into my new feed (like this time) exactly because of the problems you describe, but that doesn't mean that I don't listen to the general viewpoint he tries to get across. I admit that I'm not entirely a "free software forever" preacher, I take the bits of the FOSS manifesto that I like and disregard the rest.

One issue with your point though:

Anyway, I strongly disagree with Majestic or whoever it was that said that a person who is alienated by one man did not bother to learn the message.

That wasn't what I meant at all. I meant that a person who chooses not to learn about free software and what it means because of the appearance of one man is ignorant. Hate the player, not the game. People that don't want to associate themselves with free software because of the rantings of one man are needlessly limiting their options. It's also hypocritical since there are plenty of undesirable people that write proprietary software too (I know from experience), so by that logic those people shouldn't be using software at all.

Of course I'm looping: I'm having to break the same simple concepts for you over and over when the best rebuttal you can come up with is "but distributors aren't free" and some gibberish about slavery.

You keep repeating yourself and claiming I don't understand, when I've more than proven I fully understand the idea behind the GPL, I just don't agree and have proven in this thread that the GPL is a non-free license by standard definitions. (I couldn't care less about what Stallman's proprietary definitions are)

You're on the exact same level as a theist in a religion debate at this point, I can lay out all the various points about evolution and the age of the earth, or pick apart morality; but all you're ever going to do is repeat "GOD EXISTS GOD EXISTS GOD EXISTS GOD EXISTS" until I stop challenging your viewpoint.

Let me ask you something: won't you be by any chance one of those BSD supporters that go all angry over Linux devs that relicense BSD code, right?

No I'm not, but I'll answer your strawman anyway. Taking a permissively licensed work and simply re-licensing it under the GPL without any modification is pretty damn scummy.

It may certainly be perfectly permissable thanks to the freedom a permissive license grants, but it's still a disgustingly fanatical, ignorant thing to do.

But then again, that's all part of freedom isn't it? You've got to let the bad guys have access too. Just another point that proves that the GPL is non-free.

And while we are at it let me ask you another question: do you think that Linux contributors are enslaved? And if so, why did they choose to contribute to Linux and not any of the different BSD variants?

The irony of such a question is amusing. Allow me to answer your question with a question.

Why are the majority of games Windows only?

And do I think Linux contributors are enslaved? That depends on what you mean by Linux.

You keep repeating yourself and claiming I don't understand, when I've more than proven I fully understand the idea behind the GPL,

Really? I don't think so.

I just don't agree

Fair enough.

and have proven in this thread that the GPL is a non-free license by standard definitions. (I couldn't care less about what Stallman's proprietary definitions are)

As you clearly stated earlier, the reason you think that is because in your opinion "the focus is on the developers".

So you haven't provided more proof than your opinion, but still I'm not arguing the label you might want to stick on the license as I couldn't care less about that. What I've been arguing are the slavery and "illusion of freedom" gibberish.

You're on the exact same level as a theist in a religion debate at this point, I can lay out all the various points about evolution and the age of the earth, or pick apart morality; but all you're ever going to do is repeat "GOD EXISTS GOD EXISTS GOD EXISTS GOD EXISTS" until I stop challenging your viewpoint.

That's funny because the only single points you have been raising are the "but the distributors...", "slavery" and "illusion of freedom" mantra.

No I'm not, but I'll answer your strawman anyway. Taking a permissively licensed work and simply re-licensing it under the GPL without any modification is pretty damn scummy.

It may certainly be perfectly permissable thanks to the freedom a permissive license grants, but it's still a disgustingly fanatical, ignorant thing to do.

But then again, that's all part of freedom isn't it? You've got to let the bad guys have access too. Just another point that proves that the GPL is non-free.

How is it scummy when that's the whole point of the BSD and the difference that you keep bringing up as a "holier than thou" virtue?

If you don't want devs to relicense your code, why are you using a license that explicitly allows that?

The irony of such a question is amusing. Allow me to answer your question with a question.

Why are the majority of games Windows only?

And do I think Linux contributors are enslaved? That depends on what you mean by Linux.

The majority of computer games are Windows only because that's where most users play.

But I'm talking about kernel contributors anyway, so again: if GPL enslaves devs, why are they choosing to contribute to Linux and not BSD?

Meh, I'm all for open rights and whatnot but people like this guy are WAY too anal about it.

Great if something's open source and free to all but it's not a viable business model.

Agreed. Honestly. If your option is to have these games or software on your computer or not have them supported, which one would you choose? I disagree entirely with DRM installed when you play a CD as Sony did, or DRM that's there just for the sake of being there, but this is a little bit different. For starters, I believe they update this regularly so it should be less of a security risk, and for second, it's essentially policing a service.

Really? I don't think so.

You think wrong then.

As you clearly stated earlier, the reason you think that is because in your opinion "the focus is on the developers".

So you haven't provided more proof than your opinion, but still I'm not arguing the label you might want to stick on the license as I couldn't care less about that. What I've been arguing are the slavery and "illusion of freedom" gibberish.

The label I want to stick? It's not a label, it's a simple fact. Deal with it.

You've been sitting here trying to argue that the GPL counts as free software when it clearly it is not, don't try and backpedal because you know you're wrong.

That's funny because the only single points you have been raising are the "but the distributors...", "slavery" and "illusion of freedom" mantra.

I'm sorry if the truth is too much for you to handle. The cognitive dissonance must be pretty painful for you.

How is it scummy when that's the whole point of the BSD and the difference that you keep bringing up as a "holier than thou" virtue?

If you don't want devs to relicense your code, why are you using a license that explicitly allows that?

It's scummy because it's bad manners. No different than someone closing the code of a derivative.

Just because you have the right to do something, does not mean you should do it. Come on ichi, this is basic stuff here. We're talking childhood 101 here.

I may not want devs personally to relicense my code or to close the source of a derivative, but that is a consequence of embracing freedom. Are you so blind to the real definition of freedom you cannot see this?

The majority of computer games are Windows only because that's where most users play.

But I'm talking about kernel contributors anyway, so again: if GPL enslaves devs, why are they choosing to contribute to Linux and not BSD?

Congratulations on answering your own question.

You think wrong then.

:rolleyes:

The label I want to stick? It's not a label, it's a simple fact. Deal with it.

You've been sitting here trying to argue that the GPL counts as free software when it clearly it is not, don't try and backpedal because you know you're wrong.

I'll put it short and clear because you seem to be utterly confused:

-I don't care if you don't consider GPL to be a "free license". I don't agree with your opinion on that, but I take it as just that, an opinion, and that's not what I've been arguing about (since you seem to be impervious to the concept and value of software itself being free it would be pointless arguing with you anyway, it's like talking to a wall). Go back and re-read my posts.

-You are perfectly entitled to not liking the GPL. Again that's up to who's freedom you value, and since (as you stated before) your focus in on distributors and you don't see value in code itself being free, it's completely reasonable that you prefer BSD-style licenses.

-What I take issue with is all the nonsense about slavery and deception, using Stallman's level rethoric.

I'm sorry if the truth is too much for you to handle. The cognitive dissonance must be pretty painful for you.

Cute :laugh: Well, it's quite funny how you fall to the same level of bull**** rethoric as Stallman when demonizing a license you don't agree with.

It's scummy because it's bad manners. No different than someone closing the code of a derivative.

Just because you have the right to do something, does not mean you should do it. Come on ichi, this is basic stuff here. We're talking childhood 101 here.

I may not want devs personally to relicense my code or to close the source of a derivative, but that is a consequence of embracing freedom. Are you so blind to the real definition of freedom you cannot see this?

Are you so fanatic that you have to look down on everyone who doesn't agree with your own values?

What's the point of freedom if you are goint to bitch about what other people do with it? That comes as quite hypocritical, you are complaining about people doing exactly the only single thing BSD allows that GPL does not.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

The usual argument of BSD supporters is that it doesn't matter if someone takes your source and closes it because your original source still remains free, so why do you care if someone takes a BSD source and distributes it under a license that better fits other use cases? Because that's they whole reason of re-licensing it under the GPL.

As I said above, it's ironic how your way of vilifying ideas you don't agree with turns to be so close to Stallman's :D

Congratulations on answering your own question.

Nice try at dodging it.

You would think that, say, Oracle would have released Unbreakable BSD instead of Unbreakable Linux (considering that the whole point of the distro was just running their own proprietary DB) if they felt they were being "enslaved" by the license. And by releasing a BSD OS they'd also submit their contributions to BSD and not to the Linux kernel, again if only to not be "enslaved".

You've been sitting here trying to argue that the GPL counts as free software when it clearly it is not.

By the way, I take you actually meant "free license" and not "free software", because GPL licensed code is free software by the very definition of the Free Software term.

I'll put it short and clear because you seem to be utterly confused:

-I don't care if you don't consider GPL to be a "free license". I don't agree with your opinion on that, but I take it as just that, an opinion, and that's not what I've been arguing about (since you seem to be impervious to the concept and value of software itself being free it would be pointless arguing with you anyway, it's like talking to a wall). Go back and re-read my posts.

-You are perfectly entitled to not liking the GPL. Again that's up to who's freedom you value, and since (as you stated before) your focus in on distributors and you don't see value in code itself being free, it's completely reasonable that you prefer BSD-style licenses.

-What I take issue with is all the nonsense about slavery and deception, using Stallman's level rethoric.

Sorry ichi, but it's not an opinion - it's a fact. A very simple, proven fact that I've logically explained why it can't be true. The sheer hypocracy of you claiming -I- am the brick wall, when you've done nothing to actually read and follow the thread, and have merely parroted hollow, canned responses like some sort of bot.

Stallman resorts to using his own proprietary definitions and re-definitions of words to favour his cause, his misappropriation of the term "freedom" to refer to something that is only free in his opinion is dishonest and misleading.

I have numerous times, logically gone through the flow why the restrictions makes the GPL non-free, for you to only then jump back to a previous point in time and start parroting a point that we've already discussed.

I did not start out using Stallman's own brand of rhetoric, but in the face of you being clearly not interested to follow the topic I felt it would be the better means of communicating with someone who obviously is not interested in a reasoned discussion, and merely wants everyone to accept his word verbatim.

Are you so fanatic that you have to look down on everyone who doesn't agree with your own values?

What's the point of freedom if you are goint to bitch about what other people do with it? That comes as quite hypocritical, you are complaining about people doing exactly the only single thing BSD allows that GPL does not.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

The usual argument of BSD supporters is that it doesn't matter if someone takes your source and closes it because your original source still remains free, so why do you care if someone takes a BSD source and distributes it under a license that better fits other use cases? Because that's they whole reason of re-licensing it under the GPL.

Oh ichi, did you even bother to read the section you're replying to here? I very clearly explained it.

How large a font-size am I going to have to make the sentance where I point out the obvious disconnect between permitting something out of principal (freedom) - and having to like it? 72pt maybe?

You're basically saying to support freedom of speech, you would have to accept and agree with every possible viewpoint that results from said freedom. Do I also have to point out how absurd and impossible that would be to you?

Nice try at dodging it.

I didn't dodge it at all, but since you evidently can't see beyond your own nose I'll "break it down" for you.

Windows is the most used platform, Linux is the most used open-source kernel. Get it?

You would think that, say, Oracle would have released Unbreakable BSD instead of Unbreakable Linux (considering that the whole point of the distro was just running their own proprietary DB) if they felt they were being "enslaved" by the license. And by releasing a BSD OS they'd also submit their contributions to BSD and not to the Linux kernel, again if only to not be "enslaved".

I don't think Oracle would know sense if it slapped them in the face. Or any large multi-layered corporation packed to the brim with know-nothing managers for that matter. Hell, that lack of sense is why we're here in the first place.

He believes that software should be like human languages. Free for anyone to learn, modify or invent. If you invent a word and it gets notoriety you don't "own" that word as anyone can use it for free, they can modify it, say their modification and show others how to say your word. No royalty, no "word police" telling you that you are unauthorized to use that word without paying a license fee.

So when Steam launches on linux and it sells games and locks them behind digital rights management (you need to login to access your games after paying a license fee to play them) it goes against his principles that software should be open and free for modification and redistribution.

He is against closed source software from a fundamental freedom paradigm where by he believes all people should have access to the source code of software so that they can learn from it, modify it, improve it, fork it, redistribute it etc

I guess he could be described as the ultimate socialist I don't think in his world it is really possible to own a piece of software. I don't agree with his views, I think developers should have the choice to release open or closed software and deserve the right to decide who can and cannot use their software based on any criteria they like including a monetary one.

He's an idealist moron. I don't care what he's the 'father' of. He's an idiot. People get into this business to earn money for the most part, and they damn well should earn good money from their products. It's hard working developing top class applications and games.

OK I think this topic could do with closing or abandoning. Everyone's expressed an opinion, nobody's going to change their views, and there's no need to resort to insults.

<snip>

I'll just make one last attempt going with english 101, since logic doesn't seem to be working with you.

Free Software.

See, we have two words there: and adjective (Free) and a noun (Software). The adjective qualifies the noun.

So the Software is Free.

Did you see a Free Developer there? No, right?

And a Free Distributor? Again no.

I'll point it out again to make it clear: it's the software that's free.

Now, why is the GPL Free Software? Because software licensed under the GPL has perpetual freedom. The license itself forbids removing the "free" part from the code, so there's no way you can make GPL software "non-free".

That software won't ever get closed, so you'll be always able to run it, see and modify the code, redistribute copies to anyone, improve it and release those improvements (qualities which happen to be exactly the features that define what can be considered Free Software).

If you still can't get that then there's no point in arguing further.

I'll give you some homework though, just in case: find a formal definition (that is, not something you make up in the spot) of Free Software that disqualifies the GPL as such.

Windows is the most used platform, Linux is the most used open-source kernel. Get it?

Let's assume they are now contributing because of that (even while in some cases it doesn't matter): out of all the possible open-source projects, how comes that it was the only single one with a GPL license who attracted the most contributors and came to be the most widely used and contributed OS kernel?

Technically any software that you don't have to pay money for is free. He's just using it as a term to evangelise his own idealism, 99% of users won't give a flying feck whether they can edit the source code of the software they use or not because they simply don't know how to do it. Being Open Source isn't some magic barrier that makes software immune to being crap, it's not the holy grail of software development. It's an ideal, and like all ideals it will have it's supporters and it's detractors. Trying to strong arm people into following your own paradigms, regardless of how noble your intentions is a form of fascism, and by trying to talk Linux users into not using proprietary software he's imposing his ideals upon them.

I'll just make one last attempt going with english 101, since logic doesn't seem to be working with you.

Free Software.

See, we have two words there: and adjective (Free) and a noun (Software). The adjective qualifies the noun.

So the Software is Free.

Did you see a Free Developer there? No, right?

And a Free Distributor? Again no.

I'll point it out again to make it clear: it's the software that's free.

Now, why is the GPL Free Software? Because software licensed under the GPL has perpetual freedom. The license itself forbids removing the "free" part from the code, so there's no way you can make GPL software "non-free".

That software won't ever get closed, so you'll be always able to run it, see and modify the code, redistribute copies to anyone, improve it and release those improvements (qualities which happen to be exactly the features that define what can be considered Free Software).

If you still can't get that then there's no point in arguing further.

"Free" "Software"

"Free" as in "Freedom" not "Free Beer"

The benefit of "Free software" being you get "freedom" of action with said software.

Such actions that would be possible under the definition of "freedom" would include:

1) Using the original software freely

2) Altering the software freely

3) Redistributing the software freely

4) Redistributing your alterations freely

5) Relicensing the software freely

6) Not doing any of the above

The GPL disallows #4 and #5, the software is not "free" to be relicensed or redistributed. Therefore the software has had some of it's freedoms stripped away to further the agenda of the GPL.

Therefore the GPL is provedly not "free", as restrictions have been placed on what can be done with the software. The software is not free.

I'll give you some homework though, just in case: find a formal definition (that is, not something you make up in the spot) of Free Software that disqualifies the GPL as such.

Definition of freedom

noun

[mass noun]

1. the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants: we do have some freedom of choice

Let's assume they are now contributing because of that (even while in some cases it doesn't matter): out of all the possible open-source projects, how comes that it was the only single one with a GPL license who attracted the most contributors and came to be the most widely used and contributed OS kernel?

How come closed-source software products became the dominant desktop operating systems despite there being alternatives that are both gratis and open-source?

I think it should be mentioned that (I'm guessing) Athernar is referring to the fact that you are required to redistribute the relevant code if you redistribute your modifications. That is another attribute of the GPL that is decidedly not in support of freedom. Furthermore a few things in regards to the kernel. Kernels have always been a fun learning exercise that people attempted and re-attempted then thrown away again, trying out new architectures as they go. Linus was one of those few that happened to desire a practical, reasonably well performing monolithic kernel. He even said so in one of the first announcement posts as I recall. This combined with his good timing and willingness to voice himself, and of course his competency was the deciding factor in the kernel's success. Not the license. Being someone that has actually managed to complete a minimal kernel project in the past I find this pretty insulting. I would imagine Linus would too.

Much of the most well known and successful free software projects were born from a desire to solve a unique problem coming from a classic hacker mindset. I guarantee you what license it was under was one of the last things on anyone's mind.

Edit: I was also going to further my point by noting that going by Ichi's logic, Hurd should have flown past linux a few times over. However since I never did involve myself with it too much (a decision I still sometimes regret because of technical interest) it could be anything, from Stallman's lack of familiarity with the architecture to him trying to get people to do it for him instead of being hands on.

"Free" "Software"

"Free" as in "Freedom" not "Free Beer"

The benefit of "Free software" being you get "freedom" of action with said software.

Because of the inherent quality of the free software being free.

Being able to relicense the software gives you more freedom, but does nothing to increase the freedom of the actual code (actually the opposite). In both cases (being able to relicense and not being able to do so) the software is free, it's the developer/distributor who gets more or less rights.

Such actions that would be possible under the definition of "freedom" would include:

1) Using the original software freely

2) Altering the software freely

3) Redistributing the software freely

4) Redistributing your alterations freely

5) Relicensing the software freely

6) Not doing any of the above

The GPL disallows #4 and #5, the software is not "free" to be relicensed or redistributed. Therefore the software has had some of it's freedoms stripped away to further the agenda of the GPL.

*sigh*

Relicensing is freedom for developers/distributors. When it comes to the actual code, being able to be dispossessed of it's freedom does quite obviously not increase it.

By they way, while you managed to use a dictionary to find "freedom" you didn't provide a formal definition of Free Software yet.

How come closed-source software products became the dominant desktop operating systems despite there being alternatives that are both gratis and open-source?

Apples and oranges. You don't see third parties running en masse to contribute code to that proprietary kernel under Microsoft's proprietary license, do you?

The point is that you wouldn't get volunteers and companies to contribute code over all these years under a license that was "enslaving" and based on deception.

This combined with his good timing and willingness to voice himself, and of course his competency was the deciding factor in the kernel's success. Not the license.

Way to miss the point: Athernar's stance on the GPL is that it enslaves developers and is based on deception over an illusion of freedom, qualities that surely wouldn't get much people to contribute.

I don't know if Linux would find that insulting. He most likely wouldn't give a damn about opinions regarding the license, but the implications about his motives for choosing it are kind of offensive.

Because of the inherent quality of the free software being free.

Being able to relicense the software gives you more freedom, but does nothing to increase the freedom of the actual code (actually the opposite). In both cases (being able to relicense and not being able to do so) the software is free, it's the developer/distributor who gets more or less rights.

It does increase the freedom of the code. As the code has more rights as to what can be done with it. Use, alteration, redistribution and relicensing are all actions that include the code.

Stop playing dumb ichi. You know you're wrong, you just don't want to admit it. Or are you going to try and claim relicensing doesn't involve the code so you don't have to admit you're wrong? :laugh:

Relicensing is freedom for developers/distributors. When it comes to the actual code, being able to be dispossessed of it's freedom does quite obviously not increase it.

By they way, while you managed to use a dictionary to find "freedom" you didn't provide a formal definition of Free Software yet.

No, relicensing is freedom for the software, the distributor/developer is not the one being relicensed.

"Free software" is not a word, it's a combination of the words "freedom" and "software", we know what software is, so I provided the definition of freedom.

Apples and oranges. You don't see third parties running en masse to contribute code to that proprietary kernel under Microsoft's proprietary license, do you?

The point is that you wouldn't get volunteers and companies to contribute code over all these years under a license that was "enslaving" and based on deception.

Duh. It's called closed-source for a reason, and I fail to see what relevance the source model is. It's popular, people use popular.

Linux is the most popular open-source kernel, people use popular.

Way to miss the point: Athernar's stance on the GPL is that it enslaves developers and is based on deception over an illusion of freedom, qualities that surely wouldn't get much people to contribute.

I don't know if Linux would find that insulting. He most likely wouldn't give a damn about opinions regarding the license, but the implications about his motives for choosing it are kind of offensive.

If it's an illusion of freedom, then they would be decieved into thinking they're contributing to something that is free then wouldn't they? Do you even know what deception means? :rolleyes:

Infact, I'm rapidly starting to believe you don't understand what a lot of the definitions being used in this discussion are, and you're just parroting Stallman himself at this point.

It does increase the freedom of the code. As the code has more rights as to what can be done with it. Use, alteration, redistribution and relicensing are all actions that include the code.

Stop playing dumb ichi. You know you're wrong, you just don't want to admit it. Or are you going to try and claim relicensing doesn't involve the code so you don't have to admit you're wrong? :laugh:

No, relicensing is freedom for the software, the distributor/developer is not the one being relicensed.

That's about as dumb as saying that passing a law that grants others the right to enslave you would make you more free.

Wait no, actually it's exactly in the same level of dumbness.

"Free software" is not a word, it's a combination of the words "freedom" and "software"

No **** sherlock. Do you know what a term is?

Still waiting for a formal definition that disqualifies the GPL.

Duh. It's called closed-source for a reason, and I fail to see what relevance the source model is. It's popular, people use popular.

Linux is the most popular open-source kernel, people use popular.

People use popular stuff, but people don't contribute to a project with an "enslaving license based on deception" all they way from a newsgroup post to being the most widely used open source kernel.

If it's an illusion of freedom, then they would be decieved into thinking they're contributing to something that is free then wouldn't they? Do you even know what deception means? :rolleyes:

Huh, sure, all the contributors (both all the volunteers and the over 800 companies) have been deceived for about 20 years :rolleyes: you should be getting a clue already about how stupid your argument is instead of trying to be funny (then again maybe you are going with the later because you already realized the former).

Do you really think IBM, Intel or HP give a flying **** about who Stallman is or anything he has to say, anyway?

Infact, I'm rapidly starting to believe you don't understand what a lot of the definitions being used in this discussion are, and you're just parroting Stallman himself at this point.

Says the guy who can't tell which noun an adjective is qualifying :/

Remember when a couple of posts above I told you there was no point in further arguing with you if you still were unable to grasp the simple concept I was breaking down for you? Well, until you go and provide the formal definition I was asking for instead of grasping at straws trying to pass your opinion as facts I won't bother replying again.

That's about as dumb as saying that passing a law that grants others the right to enslave you would make you more free.

Wait no, actually it's exactly in the same level of dumbness.

The fact you think the human slavery is anything remotely comparable to some nerds squabbling over software licensing is absolutely disgusting.

Human slavery takes away all freedoms, an individual still has freedom to refuse to use derivative closed-source software. That freedom is why the software's freedom to be relicensed takes precedence.

No **** sherlock. Do you know what a term is?

Still waiting for a formal definition that disqualifies the GPL.

And I gave you one. You have the definition for freedom, and the definition for software. Stick them together.

People use popular stuff, but people don't contribute to a project with an "enslaving license based on deception" all they way from a newsgroup post to being the most widely used open source kernel.

I find it hilarious you are still completely unable to grasp the concept of "deception".

Huh, sure, all the contributors (both all the volunteers and the over 800 companies) have been deceived for about 20 years :rolleyes: you should be getting a clue already about how stupid your argument is instead of trying to be funny (then again maybe you are going with the later because you already realized the former).

Wow. Have you ever heard of religion? You know, where people believe that there is an all-powerful being in the sky despite there being no hard evidence for over 2000 years?

Do you really think IBM, Intel or HP give a flying **** about who Stallman is or anything he has to say, anyway?

Do people care about Steve Ballmer? Considering his position at Microsoft and comments regarding Google I'd say yes.

So do people care about RMS? As the president of the FSF, I'd say yes to that too.

Remember when a couple of posts above I told you there was no point in further arguing with you if you still were unable to grasp the simple concept I was breaking down for you? Well, until you go and provide the formal definition I was asking for instead of grasping at straws trying to pass your opinion as facts I won't bother replying again.

Aw, you going to run away? Darn. :(

OK I think this topic could do with closing or abandoning. Everyone's expressed an opinion, nobody's going to change their views, and there's no need to resort to insults.

Couldn't have said it better myself, so I won't reiterate. Thread closed.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
    • Cheers everyone for the replies. It's been very useful. 👍
    • Compared to the 7735HS it is around 25-30% slower in multi-threaded tasks (according to Google search) I did a review of the 7735HS Beelink SER6 Max in 2023, but thinking about it, it's not comparable to the 7730U. For the example you gave about how it will be used, the 7730U is actually an excellent choice for its power and battery efficiency.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Woland13 earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      503
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      194
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      151
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      67
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!