The "Anyone But Richard M Stallman" (ABRMS) License(github.com)
github.com
The "Anyone But Richard M Stallman" (ABRMS) License
https://github.com/landondyer/kasm/blob/master/LICENSE
9 comments
Crazy? Probably yes.
But we all owe RMS because he serves as the radical counterbalance to closed source interests.
Maybe he's a little extreme, but he does well with advocating for that end of the FOSS spectrum.
We need a RMS, whether we like him or collectively agree with his opinions.
But we all owe RMS because he serves as the radical counterbalance to closed source interests.
Maybe he's a little extreme, but he does well with advocating for that end of the FOSS spectrum.
We need a RMS, whether we like him or collectively agree with his opinions.
And this license, which I still contend is self-evidently satirical, does nothing to hinder RMS from his views. If anything, it helps maintains RMS' mantle within the software licensing zeitgeist. After all, we're talking about it now.
Eh, it stands that it's still kinda lame to skewer the guy.
But, if you subscribe to the 'any press is good press' mentality, I guess it's a win...
But, if you subscribe to the 'any press is good press' mentality, I guess it's a win...
_Richard Stallman? Richard Stallman! Why's he running dad?
_Because we have to hate him.
_He didn't do anything wrong.
_Because he's the hero Open Source Software deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So we'll hate him. Because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a silent guardian. A watchful protector. RMS.
_Because we have to hate him.
_He didn't do anything wrong.
_Because he's the hero Open Source Software deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So we'll hate him. Because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a silent guardian. A watchful protector. RMS.
What a pitiful small child behavior.
That might be a valid (albeit ironically immature) response, except that the license is self-evidently satirical.
That's the thing about satire, it's not always self-evident (to everyone).
I see it as self-evidently satirical because RMS wouldn't object to being singled out; he'd object to the license not qualifying under his definition of free software.
(Being absurd and arbitrary, it's also funny in the same way as The Ancient Mystic Society of No Homers was in an early Simpsons episode.)
(Being absurd and arbitrary, it's also funny in the same way as The Ancient Mystic Society of No Homers was in an early Simpsons episode.)
It is not self-evident that it is satirical. It seems malicious enough to me.
If you really can twist your brain into ascribing malice to those words, it's not surprising that the self-evident satire is completely lost on you.
Imagine if the license chose Bill Gates as the exclusion. Would it seem more satirical to you then? If so, why? What if it were George W Bush?
Imagine if the license chose Bill Gates as the exclusion. Would it seem more satirical to you then? If so, why? What if it were George W Bush?
The heart of satire is ridicule, so malice and satire can indeed live quite nicely side-by-side.
[deleted]
To be honest, RMS himself has demonstrated behaviors similar to that of a small child at times.
[deleted]
I'm not a fan of this license. I'm going to avoid software with it.
Note that this license is not Free or OSS, as neither definitions allow these kinds of restrictions.
There are other uses of the word "Free" outside of the GNUniverse. If he wants to call this "free software", he's just as entitled to do so as RMS was when he redefined the term.
Sure, but using Free (especially with the capital) is misleading, since the term already has quite a bit of precedent.
[deleted]
As the author of the license:
- Yes, it's satire
- No, I'm not going to amend it
Reactions are mixed, from "this is hilarious" to "this is awful and childish." Which is pretty much what I intended. More people seem to find it funny than not.
I'm happy with dissent.
- Yes, it's satire
- No, I'm not going to amend it
Reactions are mixed, from "this is hilarious" to "this is awful and childish." Which is pretty much what I intended. More people seem to find it funny than not.
I'm happy with dissent.
This is bullying
For the most part I support the views of RMS, but I'm not a particular fan of the copyleft model in all cases. I prefer using a BSD license, instead.
this guy is a dumbass troll. don't give any more attention to his shitty code
He worked at Atari during the 80s. He's debugged programs using a print readout of CPU registers. He has done more work then you. He has worked with the FBI at one point. He knows his code, otherwise Valve wouldn't have hired him.
Jealous much? (;
Jealous much? (;
> http://www.dadhacker.com/blog/?p=2106
The license author goes into the reason for the license and his thoughts on RMS in a comment on that blog post:
> It’s not about hating free software. I’m a believer in that; I released my first game for free in 1982. Note that the github thing I put up is essentially totally free (something I would have been restricted from doing, by my employer, up to a year ago).
> I have a personal dislike for RMS and I think that his philosophy of economy is at best naïve and dangerously unworkable. 25 years ago he was exhorting me to quit my job in protest to support some of his politics and he wasn’t pleasant about it. Thus, ABRMS.
> If RMS really wants a miserable little 6502 assembler I can always amend the license. I’m not unreasonable. But he has to ask. :-)