Bradley Kuhn

We kinda do have it; it's just mostly useless, given the linking clause. (Not entirely useless, though, as that article sets out.) GPL and AGPL have the same layout, so you can just take the LGPL, and replace all references to 'GPL' and 'GNU General Public License' with 'AGPL' and 'GNU Affero General Public License'. Of course, you couldn't call that license 'GNU ALGPL' or 'GNU LAGPL'; you'd have to come up with your own name. (Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, and I haven't checked this as thoroughly as I would if I were going to use this for my own software.) Maybe it's worth bothering Bradley M. Kuhn (http://ebb.org/bkuhn/) again and seeing what the current status of a Lesser AGPL is?

>He does not have any right to a particular job No offense but I find this argument to be in bad faith. You would not say that for someone being fired due to being lgbt, would you? (whether it is legal or not is irrelevant here as this is about moral rights) He was not ostracized because they found him "not competent to serve the organization in a leadership role" but rather because they were outraged at his opinions (combined with a misrepresentation of his statements along with lies and half-truths -- the pleasure cards, the mit office label, etc). >Many people, including FSF board members, believed he was not competent to serve the organization in a leadership role. It would be great if these people too didn't try to misrepresent what he said. Such as in http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2019/10/15/fsf-rms.html

> Don't forget Jobs attempted to steal NeXt's fork of the GCC with Obj-C extensions. The FSF had to sue NeXt to get them to release their modifications. Actually there was no lawsuit. NeXT released the patches after a warning: http://ebb.org/bkuhn/talks/LinuxTag-2011/compliance.html > Stealing Free Software is cheap from a business perspective. This is why I recommend everyone use AGPLv3 whenever possible (and consider changing the license on your old Free Software - you can do this if all of the contributors consent). Apple has been removing all GPLv3 software from Mac OS X over the past several years because v3 is incompatible with their goals of totalitarian computing: http://meta.ath0.com/2012/02/05/apples-great-gpl-purge/

A few followups: http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2015/07/15/ubuntu-ip-policy.html https://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/35969.html http://jriddell.org/2015/07/15/ubuntu-policy-complies-with-gpl-but-fai…

Mozilla is Serving Users. A great Orwellian phrasing. http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/05/14/to-serve-users.html

'Intellectual Property' doesn't exist at all, people just like to group copyright, trademarks and patents into the same term despite the separate, drastically different sets of laws backing them. Lewis Hyde's Common As Air is a good read on the framers' original intentions when it came to issues like this, and why our modern system is in violation of their original constitutional mandate. Personally enjoyed it more than his other well known work The Gift. On the subject of the article, and as per Bradley Kuhn's analysis[1], it should be noted that the court did not consider the question of fair use in this case and a jury will be able to sit down and consider that can of worms going forward. Not the end of the world, considering. [1] http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/05/10/oracle-google.html

I'm not even sure it's worth submitting patches to Diaspora, both because of the fundamental problems with the code, but also because of their "Open Core" licensing scheme (AGPL + contributor agreement): http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2009/10/16/open-core-shareware.html Looking through the code, it looks like Diaspora is really just putting a front end and "aspects" on top of OStatus. I think it might be good at this point to just scrap the Diaspora code and start over from the basics with a good OStatus-based reference implementation in Rails.

The video starts off with a factual error: > MIT fired him from his job as a professor at the university He had no such job - he in fact emphatically left MIT employment (as research staff, he was never a professor) before starting GNU so that MIT wouldn't have a copyright claim on his work. He had an office at MIT, nonetheless, because he had politically powerful friends. See https://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.en.html: "In January 1984 I quit my job at MIT and began writing GNU software. Leaving MIT was necessary so that MIT would not be able to interfere with distributing GNU as free software. If I had remained on the staff, MIT could have claimed to own the work, and could have imposed their own distribution terms, or even turned the work into a proprietary software package. I had no intention of doing a large amount of work only to see it become useless for its intended purpose: creating a new software-sharing community. However, Professor Winston, then the head of the MIT AI Lab, kindly invited me to keep using the lab's facilities." The speaker goes on to make these comments about what cancel culture teaches: > The other thing that cancel culture teaches that there's no forgiveness about anything, right? The minute you make a mistake, you are forever shunned by everyone else, and - that's wrong, that's completely antithetical to everything the free software movement is about. That's an excellent sign that what happened to RMS is not cancel culture - multiple…

> Here is all of the stuff, filtered through Wikipedia's editorial process that is intended to eliminate unfounded personal opinion, stuff from unidentifiable sources, nonsense, and bias. Look, it isn't a hate parade; therefore there is no hate parade as M. Shuttleworth claimed. Actually, that Wikipedia link is not meant as evidence against Shutterworth's comments or in defense of my own. It's provided merely as context to those who are just now hearing about this situation. No, my comment regarding the lack of a hate parade is supported only by common sense. A position easily taken once one digs a bit deeper into this subject. You should click through some of the actual references mentioned in (and outside of) that Wikipedia article: Matthew Garrett's comments, http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/25376.html Bradley Kuhn's comments, http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/07/07/harmony-harmful.html Jonathan Riddell's comments, https://blogs.kde.org/2013/06/26/kubuntu-wont-be-switching-mir-or-xmir Aaron Seigo's comments, https://plus.google.com/+AaronSeigo/posts/76Nd9RSTZWp Then, tell me if these opinions or the community comments they generated actually seem hateful. In fact, the only substantial hate generated by this debacle was really in response to Canonical's unfounded swipe at Wayland, which was later retracted, and Shutterworth branding of opponents as "The Open Source Tea Party". And even that level of grandstanding only generated a modicum of hate from the community in…

> Kallithea is partly a fork of our old, legacy version of RhodeCode without all the hard work our engineers spent over the last 12 months in turning an open source project into a real, sophisticated enterprise product. The marketing-speak, it burns. You turned your back on us. You lied. You and Marcin repeatedly told us that you were comitted to free software. I don't know if you lied to Marcin as well or if both of you knew that the GPL-ness of Rhodecode was going to disappear. For a while you had an ambiguous licensing situation where you made it seem like Rhodecode was still somehow GPL'ed, but after a while you apparently tried to revoke permissions on everything. You even threatened with legal action someone who used the code under the GPL license you said you were allowing. Oh, apparently you even went through with your legal threat: https://github.com/moparisthebest/unlimit-code/blob/master/readme.md And now you're talking about "engineers" and "enterprise" and "real" and "sophisticated". bkuhn salvaged what he could without trying to get into the legalities of the GPL revoking you did (which the GPL itself forbids), but still I feel very betrayed by what you did with Rhodecode. edit: more details of the debacle http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/07/15/why-kallithea.html

Bradley M Kuhn has since announced[1] the platform[2] Luke would have been running on (with a blog post for updates[3]): Shared Platform for OSI Reform Item 1. Repeal the Open Source AI Definition (OSAID) Item 2. Adopt a process for formal review of previously approved licenses Item 3. Remove “code of silence” from Board Member Agreement Item 4. Directors should be allowed to use FOSS for Board activities Which of these points are the OSI's current leadership so committed to blocking that they would make Luke's candidacy their hill to die on? 1. https://mas.to/@[email protected] 2. https://codeberg.org/OSI-Reform-Platform/platform 3. https://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2025/02/28/osi-board-election.html

RMS is a complex character. However, I tend to side with Bradley M. Kuhn's view. http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2019/10/15/fsf-rms.html

It is really fascinating that the first website I went to is exactly named "Why bkuhn's Website Looks Like Crap", where someone explains why he is sticking to Web 1.0. http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn/why-crap.html These are the times that make me consider to believe in fortune.

A couple of articles about not using CLAs: http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/06/09/do-not-need-cla.html https://drewdevault.com/2018/10/05/Dont-sign-a-CLA.html

My opinion is the opposite of yours - I like RMS immensely, but believe he's no longer fit to represent free software. The article that changed my mind [1] stated that, in short, making public statements on controversial topics unrelated to free software is harmful to the FSF's mission, regardless of how correct those statements may be. [1] http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2019/10/15/fsf-rms.html

He changed his mind eventually about children being able to consent to sex. But he does make himself sound more receptive to feedback than Bradley Kuhn and other people who worked with him say.[1] [1] http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2019/10/15/fsf-rms.html

>Do you have sources for the "well documented" views that pedophilia is not harmful and that children can give consent and should be allowed to engage in sexual intercourse? Because the blurb above certainly does not say any of that. Apart from the appendix linked to in the open letter being critiqued in the OP, there is this often mentioned quote by the man himself: “I am sceptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren’t voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing.” [0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21287006 [1]https://selamjie.medium.com/remove-richard-stallman-appendix... [2]https://medium.com/@thomas.bushnell/a-reflection-on-the-depa... [3]http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2019/10/15/fsf-rms.html

> In fact, RMS' views and statements posted on stallman.org about sexual morality escalated for the worse over the last few years. -- Bradley Kuhn (at-the-time FSF board member), http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2019/10/15/fsf-rms.html On the original blog, every word in that sentence is a link to a different post on stallman.org

Here's a long-term FSF insiders perspective: http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2019/10/15/fsf-rms.html - that specific instance was just the thing that pushed it over the edge in the end. And now they surprised everyone with this return announcement out of the blue, with little to nothing indicating any commitment to change.

There was recently a forum thread where this was asked and the answer is no [0]. I don't think there is much incentive to do this either because last I heard the app stores on those platforms still have agreements that are incompatible with the LGPL [1], which means you can't use them to distribute GTK programs. [0] https://discourse.gnome.org/t/gtk-4-and-android/2808 [1] http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2012/11/22/vlc-lgpl.html

I'll leave with this...how someone who disagreed with his religious values can still write a meaningful obit. http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2018/07/29/gerv.html

Bradley Kuhn is no longer associated with the FSF anyway [1]. That doesn't mean that he doesn't care about free software anymore. I just thought it was interesting that you mentioned him specifically. [1] http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2019/10/15/fsf-rms.html

Bradley Kuhn also wrote an article with regard to recent matters with RMS, which was submitted on HN a couple of days ago, and (I think) received inadequate attention: http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2019/10/15/fsf-rms.html https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21262282

Flagged for changing the link from http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2019/05/10/delta-union-busting.html to https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/05/10/delta-told-workers-… circa 5pm Fri 5/10/19. PSA to all confused readers reading comments posted before that time. Moderators, if this isn't against policy, it ought to be.

Url changed from http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2019/05/10/delta-union-busting.html, which points to this.

> What about the Apache Foundation CLA? This CLA is one of the better ones, because it doesn’t transfer copyright over your work to the Apache Foundation. I have no beef with clauses 1 and 3-8. However, term 2 is too broad and I would not sign this CLA. Term 2 of the CLA just defines inbound=outbound for Term 2 of the License (https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0). The Apache CLA is pretty benign (for projects that are distributed under the Apache license; sometimes it is used for projects distributed under different licenses and then it gets murky), but the overhead to contributors and maintainers is significant and it is less precise than a Developer's Certificate of Origin. The "Inbound=Outbound Is All You Need" section of this post is on-point. http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/07/07/harmony-harmful.html

I'd say Brad Kuhn got it right in http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2016/08/13/does-not-kill.html including "[Y]our proprietary software has killed people, both quickly and slowly, and your attacks on GPLv3 and software freedom are not only unwarranted, they are clearly part of a political strategy to divert attention from your own industry's bad behavior and graft unfair blame onto FLOSS".

It's honestly very common people are unaware. http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2009/11/08/gpl-enforcement.html > I'd say that 98% of the violations I've ever worked on since 1998 have been unintentional and due primarily to negligence, not malice. (author of the above statement led FSF's GPL enforcement for many years)

RhodeCode was already Open Source once and it then went "closed source"[1]. That event resulted in creating a truly Open Source fork called Kallithea[2] (GPLv3) held under Software Freedom Conservancy[3] umbrela. I wonder if they tried to cooperate with SFC, as it seems they have choosen an Open Source license incompatible with Kallithea (AGPL vs GPL3)? Would those two projects try to work together? There is not much choice if you need Mercurial self-hosting unfortunatelly, so this move is much appreciated. [1] http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/07/15/why-kallithea.html [2] https://kallithea-scm.org/ [3] https://sfconservancy.org/

It depends. (IANAL.) If the fork is no longer licensed under the GPL, and the distributor is the copyright owner, then the fork is not under the GPL. Use an older version which is under the GPL. If the distributor does not hold copyright to the source code, then the distributor's statement that a given fork is non commercial is meaningless. If the distributor holds the copyright to some of the code, and not others, then it's complicated. The Kallithea fork (see http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/07/15/why-kallithea.html ) dealt with a similar issue by going to the previous unambiguously GPL'ed version of the code.