Nonfree software allows me to do stuff more efficiently. I'm sorry if it hurts your feelings.

I tell him the GPL is a viral, horrible license and that things like ISC and BSD are better for free software and the world as a whole.
No I'm not trolling.

I knock him out and install proprietery software on his electronics

i tell him to deal with it

GTFO go find your own basement.

>>21764066
>installing proprietary software on a machine running nothing but Emacs
Good luck.

I tell him it's not my fault free softwares tend to suck.

I was uninstalling it.

Sing the Free Software song 10 times then proceed to preaching about free software on the streets

I'm sorry! I try to avoid it, but I need it for work! I offset it with generous donations to the FSF. Please don't crush me with your weight!

>>21764061

BSD-fag: "Permissive licenses are the best things ever! I dont see why anyone would use ANYTHING other then a permissive license!!!!"

>android uses a permissive license

> manufacturers fill it needlessly with their bloatware

Bsd-fag: "ZOMG! ANDROID IS SUCH SHIT! These companies are evil and fucking up android with there bloatware. I'm going to use windows phone 7 rather then your google botnet! Linux kernel is such shit!"

-.-

>>21764100
Not everyone who likes the BSD license is a BSDfag.

>>21764097
stallman actually said its fine to use proprietary software if your forced to because of your work, especially when there is no alternative.

>>21764109
True story, bro. In fact, I doubt even most people using BSD license are BSD-fags.

>>21764116
When did he say that? Source please, thanks.

>>21764109
oh please, FreeBSD is trying to write a new C compiler because they dont want to use GCC because GCC uses the GPL license. How fucking hipster can you get.

Use Apache license and avoid butthurt.

/thread

>>21764144
>hipster
They want to write a new compiler because they don't want to have the FSF come along and go "OH YOU USED THE GCC COMPILER? WELL NOW YOU HAVE TO MAKE WHATEVER YOU COMPILED WITH IT FREE SOFTWARE AS WELL." Which I wouldn't put beyond the FSF.

I say fuck off

>>21764133
Its in his biography. He actually used proprietary intel machines to write free software back in the day.

Thats a trolling one, but if it was true, I think he has the right to use whatever software he wants.

>>21764116
He never said that (to my knowledge). I've only heard him advocate against it. Someone asked about this once during a speech and he you should find another job, even if it's waiting tables, before writing proprietary software. The only exception he made was if you were in starving in India and that was the only job you could get to feed you and your family.

>>21764160
oh, thats complete bullshit. That is not how the GPL license works. Any edits BSD does to the GCC they would have to release. Not anything GCC compiled.

This is why no one takes BSD seriously.

>>21764185
That's because no suitable alternative existed. Stallman only used proprietary software for the brief time it was necessary for him to advocate the GNU system. He now claims that free software has advanced enough that no one should have a valid excuse to use non-free software.

>>21764209
Video games
and I mean fun, modern video games

>>21764193
I heard him say it in a video on youtube before. He said that if your job requires you to use proprietary software, you can use it, but you should explain to your employer the benefits of free software. (it was a question concerning jobs in the embedded market which require proprietary software and there is no free alternative)

The waiting job was in reference to myself in Revolution OS. He said he didn't like the way software was moving and he didn't think he would be a good waiter so he decided to create gnu.

>>21764160
This was posted once on the GCC mailing list by Stallman but he later changed his mind and decided to "hold off" on such a decision.

> The fact of the matter is that GCC allowed applications built with it to remain proprietary simply because we were under the belief that such programs would likely only be used internally and not distributed. After all, the GPL only convers distribution of software. Our line of thinking was that if an end user had access to the source code for a program to compile it for their system, then that program was likely free software. This is not always the case today. Microsoft, among others, have come out with "reference licenses" which allow the user to view and build software from the source code but the software itself is inherantly non-free because they violate freedoms 1 and 3. All four conditions must be met for software to be considered truly free. We can no longer assume that just because one has access to the source code for the program that the software is free.

> I believe it is imperative that this loophole be fixed for GCC 4.7 by either adding an additional condition to the GCC license specifically or by releasing GPLv3.1 to close the loophole for all software that generates binaries, IR/bytecode, or interprets source code at runtime.

>>21764195
>then GPLv4
>More viral than ever

If the FSF is pro choice, then why would it be against me choosing to use proprietary software (and not talking to anyone about it to avoid the spreading the word) ?

>>21764236
nice sources there

Drivers and Flash. Drivers and Flash.

>>21764032
I'd tell him to fuck off and get a real job instead of getting paid to preach about FOSS bullshit.

Go fuck yourself you disgusting fat faggot.

>>21764265
Drivers are rarely an issue these days. Most components that an end user would want to run have free drivers. The issue is firmware. A lot of devices still require a proprietary BIOS and proprietary firmware. The alternative to flash exists in HTML5 and there is the Gnash project for existing Flash programs.

I am using an ATM when he catches me, and he says that is okay.

"Morning, Mr. Stallman. It's great to meet you. Do you want to go grab some coffee?"

Yep, that's pretty much it. I don't have to excuse myself to anybody for what I put on my computer. And, I really love coffee.

どうでもいい！

>>21764362
>>21764331
fuck off with your moonrunes

>>21764331
>>21764362

>>21764294
Drivers are a problem if you have a chipset by Broadcom, and HTML5 is (sadly) not too widely addopted by websites.

It's cool, Stallman says it's okay to use non-free software as long as you're trying to replicate it's functionally to create a free alternative.

>>21764236
Jesus christ Stallman is a nutcase.

>>21764032

>implying I need to have excuse

I can use FOSS when it's better. If there is better "nonfree" alternative - I will use subjectively better software.

So try to make GOOD programs...

>>21764393
Free drivers exist for Broadcom devices in the drivers: b43, b43legacy, and rndis_wlan. Again, the issue is that these drivers all require proprietary firmware. They'll work on distros that ship such firmware (Ubuntu, Fedora, etc), but Debian's policy doesn't allow the firmware to be shipped and the FSF will not endorse a distribution which includes those binary blobs.

>your face when he politely suggests that you use free software and doesn't say anything else

I'm really not sure why you faggots think he'll freak out or be angry or demand that you stop using it or else you're supporting evil and should be destroyed.

>>21764479
Because that's what he states in all his speeches.

>>21764503
>He states that people using non-free software should be destroyed

Implying you're not a liar and a faggot.

>>21764522
That was obviously a hyperbole, but I have a feeling Stallman wouldn't just politely suggest I use free software. I have the feeling he would proceed to give me one of his hour long speeches about it and act really preechy. He does believe proprietary software is immoral.

>>21764465

You are just now figuring this out?

>I do not post on 4chan. Occasionally I have answered questions for interviews for 4chan, but any account there that says it is me is an impostor.

Huh... so he HAS actually answered questions...

>>21764032
>implying...

>>21764561
>I have the feeling he would proceed to give me one of his hour long speeches about it and act really preechy.

He's conscious of the fact that personal conversations are not free software speeches and knows pushing people towards free software in such a situation can be counter-productive in terms of getting them to adopt free software, he's written about this exact topic before. You may or may not find his suggestion "preechy," you've heard at least some of what he says before so it might sound more like preaching than to someone who hasn't heard it.

I was expressing my freedom by choosing to use this software.