I know there is the contrived case of a codebase being improved and re-packaged under a proprietary license but that just doesn't happen

The problem, of course, is that you'd probably never realize it unless you looked really, really hard at software whose license would prohibit you from looking (c.f. anti-reverse engineering clauses, etc.)

So RMS maybe right but he is wrong by enforcing his opinion on others if he truly believes in freedom.

He does, which is why everything under the GPL is there voluntarily, placed there by the original author.

But really his solution is worse than the problem.

Prove it. Go on, substantiate your claim.

I will take Milton Friedmans stance on this by a limited framework where both users and developers do what they will as long as they do not oppose that will on others.

And we have that framework, where everyone is allowed to freely license the software they write - and alter/redistribute software according to the license placed on it by the original creator.

Your argument is horribly disingenuous and twists your citation back in on itself. That no one else has called you out on this shows how vocal the anti-RMS, anti-FSF, anti-GPL trolls in this thread are.

Except that people are willfully ignoring the massive patent exception to the MIT license. Even you gloss over it. At least the terms of the GPL are clearly spelled out, you don't know what will happen if you intentionally or even accidentally cross Microsoft's very limited patent grant.

So don't go using these sources in anything not a .NET runtime or application running on a .NET runtime. Even if you think it might help Python, Ruby, or some other application in some other language. It's open, but not really.

one of the chief objections to the RPi is the fact that it doesn't run "industry-standard software"... i.e. Windows.

But that's neither a rational or logical objection. It's a biased objection born of ignorance.

This is because companies like Intuit and H&R Block lobby Congress to prevent the IRS from simply applying all the information they already have.

We'll (deliberately) ignore that groups beyond those with "tea party" in their name were also delayed. Because that destroys the "conservative groups are so persecuted!" narrative.

This was done to rig the 2012 election

Paranoid, conspiratorial bullshit doesn't help anything except to paint you as a partisan hack.

Do you care about what embedded OS your dishwasher runs?

Yeah, because my PC is as interactive and important as my dishwasher!

As long as Win 10 runs my existing Windows-only apps and games, I'm happy.

Life's too short to worry about operating systems.

Indeed, we shouldn't concern ourselves with options outside of that which Microsoft provides. Doing so is stupid, and makes you stupid. Right?

Consider just Canada alone, from which Cuba could have had any technology they wished.

Given they haven't gotten it, I suspect it's more complex than that! Part of it may be that companies that operate in violation of U.S. embargoes cannot do business in the U.S., thus making Cuba not worth their attention might be part of it.

Change has to come from Cuban leadership, if at all.

Indeed, when dealing with a regime on the wrong side of an embargo or blockade, it's always the one at the bottom of the power slope that is responsible, right?

What is very telling is that the cuban community in Florida is really, really angry we are lifting the embargo - because all it does is empower the people that made Cuba what it is today.

They're angry because their property was seized - but their kids don't generally care. On the other hand, the Cuban government released a bunch of political prisoners in the past week or two, which at least suggests that Raul and the party are at least cognizant of the changes coming down the pipe.

Why is it necessary for Mozilla to have paid employees, let alone an actual corporate structure?

Because they complete with Microsoft and Google, and have done a good job at it.

Why does Mozilla need to "compete" with Google. Mozilla is a non-profit. What's the endgame here?

Staying relevant and keeping up with standards, and delivering a browser with updates on a timely basis.

Why can't they just write their software for people who want it and let people use Chrome who want to use Chrome.

Because in short while the project would likely fall apart when faced with the pace of development MS and Google can do.

There's lots of open-source software projects out there that continue to run based solely on the contributions of their developers.

And a great many of those contributors are compensated for doing so, via other sources. They are very fortunate.

Given the choice between "Commercial Mozilla" trying to compete with Chrome, and a slower changing, community run affair, I'll take the latter.

And enjoy it as it falls behind.

What's wrong with the Rod From God idea anyway?

Because it reinforces the mindset that the only way forward is military superiority, which is suicidal.

when somebody considers himself justified to do anything other than talk back in response to whatever speech he may find offensive.

I think people are willfully misconstruing the sort of thing the EFF is talking about. They certainly don't appear to be talking about things that are generally offensive, but specific, targeted harassment against individuals where they are hounded everywhere they go.

But since people are getting killed over comics, you shouldn't worry about the torrent of abuse directed towards you on every site you visit. Right? Just suck it up and be glad you're not dead?

But you certainly have the right to offend them.

Indeed, you have the right to stalk them from website to website and deliver a constant stream of abuse. They take offense? Oh, that's their problem. So long as you don't physically harm someone, you're OK! Emotionally harming and constantly harassing someone until they break is a-ok though!

At least, if I understand ShangahiBill and the above post by fyngrz.

Are we to assume that because France is having trouble, the EFF should stop and we should just not bother?

"Oh, they're dealing with something terrible, I suppose I should just be quiet and accept the abuse I suffer because, hey, at least I'm not being murdered!"

No I am tired of that argument it might have been legit 20 years ago but history in the mean time has proven its horse shit.

So basic logic was legit 20 years ago, but now it's invalid?

One religion in recent history has been responsible for the vast vast majority of religious inspired violence.

You mean a subset of people who consider themselves to be part of a religion.

I am not saying governments ought to step in an stop people from practicing their faith but I do think the rest of society might do well to express a little less religious tolerance and acceptance.

But only against those you choose to be intolerant again. And when you are intolerant, you express blanket intolerance. Great way to make enemies and end up like Europe.

A little social exclusion would probably lead lots of younger folks to drop it

Or it would make them feel oppressed and alienated, leading them to lend an ear to the extremists. Oh wait, this is exactly what is happening. You are your own worst enemy.