ebic

@crunklord420@kiwifarms.cc dude what the fuck leah went full based

@pernia@shitposter.club Leah _will_ be a woman

@thatbrickster@shitposter.club @crunklord420@kiwifarms.cc leah has a complex history

@crunklord420@kiwifarms.cc character development 💯

@thatbrickster@shitposter.club @crunklord420@kiwifarms.cc she definitely has mellowed out as of late though, i think shes learning a lot from her past and owning up to it. something that not a lot of people like to do

@crunklord420@kiwifarms.cc lmao tranny wars nao

@crunklord420@kiwifarms.cc the adoption of that CoC is actually the reason I stayed away from libreboot. Now that this has happened I might actually check it out

@crunklord420@kiwifarms.cc Fucking Libreboot, a project crippled by it's own conflation of sexual morality with computer BIOS. Fucking genius, prove intolerance at a completely disconnected project goal. GNU is communist anyway.

@crunklord420@kiwifarms.cc I had to check that this was real. Now I'm wondering if the site got hacked

@RustyCrab@kiwifarms.cc lol nope the soyboys are crying about it https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26638037

@RustyCrab@kiwifarms.cc @crunklord420@kiwifarms.cc Not hacked

@crunklord420@kiwifarms.cc b-b-b-based

@crunklord420@kiwifarms.cc Incredibly based

@crunklord420@kiwifarms.cc two years later: rowe announces detransition

@crunklord420@kiwifarms.cc She's kinda right, besides most of these CoC users are on github which *already* has rules against whateverism. The only reason someone would use a CoC is to virtue signal >inb4 >she

@wageslave@kiwifarms.cc @RustyCrab@kiwifarms.cc @crunklord420@kiwifarms.cc the "or later" for GPL licensing is only there for compatibility reasons with precedent and newer versions, it doesn't "upgrade" the license at all. It permits distribution/sahring without legal issues.

@Coyote@tucson.claims @crunklord420@kiwifarms.cc >is communist anyway "Isn't it ironic that the proprietary software developers call us communists? We are the ones who have provided for a free market, where they allow only monopoly." -RMS

@crunklord420@kiwifarms.cc In a way this is frustrating to see because this keeps happening over and over again Someone did NOT think of the consequences and did not do their research of what they were getting into

@mangeurdenuage@shitposter.club @crunklord420@kiwifarms.cc Fallacy. Communist propaganda. Yes. "where they allow only monopoly" Capitalist build roads, infrastructure, help enable one another. To say it does not, and somehow extrapolate that to capitalism _ONLY_ provides for monopoly is pure fallacy. So, BSD software is destine to fail? Yet, was the go-to for the likes of Apple? And, remains a solid daily driver platform (for the most part) in multiple flavors, Net, Open, Free, and directives? That's just pure fantasy and will never work? Theory based on false premise, and conclusion also proven false. WTF man, just because RMS said it doesn't make it true. He's a great coder, not god. And not satan. Just a man, with a communist outlook on software, that generated a huge body of great code. Respectable, but not "ultimate way to license all products forever." Fucking artistic vision was genius, but not all implementations are without fault. "Proprietary Software Developers" is not "monopoly" if what it means is any smuck can write some fun firmware for a next-gen furbie and hang on to his code a bit before being knocked off. That's enabling and empowering individual developers, not demanding an all or nothing monopoly vs communist software false dilema.

@Coyote@tucson.claims @crunklord420@kiwifarms.cc

copyrights and patents are monopoly entitlements proprietary licensing amounts to exercising such monopolies

@lxo@gnusocial.net "copyrights and patents are monopoly entitlements" False, propaganda. Those are "rights" issued to "authors" and "inventors" who then must release those rights to corporations before they can become a monopoly. Creators are not required to do so, and therefore they are not inherently creating monopolies. The financial incentive to release those rights to large entities must be decentralized (distributed, profitable persute, like BSD), and the false "solution" of communist software is presenting a solution to a problem that is much smaller of a bug to isolate and correct. "proprietary licensing amounts to exercising such monopolies" Way out of any actual foundation from legislation, because property licensing BEGINS with a fabric tied to an individual, not a corporation, by it's constitutional foundations. Granted, that could be more clarified, and used to enable individual creation. But, still, your premise is false, and conclusion. Where do you get this stuff? Is this Stallman'ism's? I never read his fucking book, didn't see it as "required reading" to learn to code like everyone else did. I probably am missing something.

what do you think "exclusive rights" actually means? the author/inventor hold them until they transfer it for a corporation to exploit them. it was a monopoly from the beginning, it just changed owner. now, truth be said, that's not how it really works. most authors and inventors transfer ownership of their works and inventions to a corporation before they even exist. free software [copyright] licenses cancel out the exclusivity that copyright laws impose by default. this is true of copyleft licenses like the GNU GPL as it is of lax permissive licenses like the BSD ones.