@mala I've just had a long debate with several italian open source advocates and with Simon Phipps. They say that #OpenSource is #FreeSoftware.
Here: https://twitter.com/giacomotesio/status/966656318235906048 and previous...
I think that the cultural difference is pretty evident today and that you just need a bit of #history to explain it.
But since some of them seem somehow related to @fsfstatus or at least with @fsfe I'd like to know Stallman opinion.
Do you know how one could contact him directly?
@Shamar Just email him: rms@gnu.org
I guarantee he'll respond. Probably just a link to this, though: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
@JordiGH I wrote him and he actually responded. He obviously pointed me that article (that I did already know by heart) but also this one https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-meme-hustler
Very interesting to understand WHY #FreeSoftware and #OpenSource are different things and HOW the #hackers' #ethics had been marginalized by the #SiliconValley.
@Shamar Ah, yeah, I didn't know rms also liked that meme hustler article. Also familiar with it, but much newer to me. Interesting that O'Reilly is the one who put all the money behind the initial open source campaign!
@JordiGH Brillant #marketing technique!
The very opposite of "divide et impera": he exploited the language to blur the meaning of #FreeSoftware into what people now call #FOSS or #FLOSS.
I'm not in any way against corporates distributing #OpenSource but I don't want to give my time and skills for free to them.
For #Free is not for #Freedom!
In the past I was fool enough to think it was the same, but I was very wrong: https://medium.com/@giacomo_59737/what-i-wish-i-knew-before-contributing-to-open-source-dd63acd20696
Lesson learned!
@Shamar @JordiGH
Feel bad that someone uses your code? Do not contribute. Never expect anything out of #opensource project other than you getting to use that project with your itches scratched. True freedom is not caring. Once your code is out there it is no longer yours. Most of the time it isn't even anything special, it is just a number of hours you put in. GPL is also not freedom. What's so libre about license restricting me how I can use the code? #DontBeButthurt
No.
I'm very happy when others use my code.
But, if you remove my #Copyright statement from the code I have donated you, you are threatening my rights to use my code elsewhere.
I guess you are young...
I can suggest you to do your homeworks and to read something about the topics you str talking about.
Otherwise your ignorance will be pretty evident to everybody when you talk with professionals developers.
And, if you want to be a #troll, choose your interlocutors more wisely. ;-)
@Shamar I never said that removal of your copyright was a good thing. It is at very least unfair. Its just that sometimes people overvalue their code and then have baseless regrets about sharing it or release it under "free" license that makes it unusable in most projects. If i were in your place i would still fight for copyright to be reinstated though.
Do you think I should add something to this: https://github.com/Harvey-OS/harvey/issues/698 ?
@Shamar Well... That thread seems like a very touchy subject. Maybe instead of saying what you should do i will say what i would have done. Your contributions are in git history forever, copyright notice in the files or not. Based on that and on license at time of contributing i do not see how you using your own contributions could be in danger.
@Shamar I myself never add copyright with my name if i do not create file, and very rarely if i do. Depends on the project. However I would demand note in AUTHORS or similar file. Bragging rights are important :)
You are right that you should never expect anything back from #opensource, as it's just a #marketing tool.
But note that the #hackers' #ethics behind #FreeSoftware would made such #Copyright removals pointless!
As a FreeSoftware programmer, I welcome any contribution and I'm PROUD of it.
@Shamar Ok they rebased entire history. But you pointed out multiple commits by yourself in Harvey-OS/harvey repository. Rebasing after all is replaying git commits. Although the fact that github no longer shows you as contributor is strange. But i still dont see how you can be sued for using your changes as your ownership is proven by git history. If all else fails there also is a project license that can not be revoked retroactively.
I'm afraid you should study a bit more #git and in particular `git rebase`.
It's not the same as `git revert`: it can remove commits and even mix them together...
Indeed I asked them to use `git revert` because it was easier to use correctly.
As for the "proven by git history", not that easy.
Once one of the contenders uses `git rebase` it's hard to prove anything in court (probably not impossible, but hard).
The commits where not cryptographically signed (as per dev process).
@Shamar I know very well what git rebase does... I think i get what happened now.. Links to your commits in first issue post are working, but they are probably just cached by github. So they removed your changes by rebasing master branch of their repository? Working links to your commits really threw me off here. And they rebased master branch of their repo. What a mess.. People smart enough to make OS should know better, or so i thought. Sucks this happened, im sorry man :|
@rokups
Did you noticed that they git rebased the whole repository?
Indeed I'm not listed anymore at https://github.com/Harvey-OS/harvey/graphs/contributors
Despite I'm still present in the original history at my old github fork https://github.com/Shamar/harvey/graphs/contributors
The fact is that probably you are too young to consider time in your reasoning.
What if ten years from now, new maintainers rebase the whole history as a single commit, move elsewhere (say GitLab) remove the GitHub repo, and sue me for using my own code? All in good faith!