LinuxMusicians

https://github.com/Microsoft/calculator ... etry&type=

very interesting! though from the comments, it appears that they were just having it phone home in a specific condition related to time zone changes to evaluate if some code was actually ever used. Of course though it indicates that this sort of thing is routine and even something innocuous may gather data you wouldn't want sent out.

I've written about this: https://lyberta.net/articles/tech/free_ ... usted.html

Basically, pretty much every FOSS project right now is spyware, or as I like to call it - stallmanware. Nice job only focusing on license, Stallman, nice job.

What's this new stallman meme I seem to be behind on?

Not really a new meme. But the Stallman and FSF are always like "license is important, everything else is details" so now we have tons of MIT/BSD/whatever spyware. Because license is important! The fact that it is spyware is not and big corporations will continue to flood everyone with it so there is not enough people to remove the spyware code from it.

In the end Stallman got what he fought for, but the end user is screwed.

But isn't license pretty much the defining factor of free software? I'm not sure what the alternative is, if licenses are not seen as important you end up in the same place, or probably a much worse place.

Lyberta wrote:I've written about this: https://lyberta.net/articles/tech/free_ ... usted.html

Interesting article. I completely agree just slapping a Free/Open license on software doesn't automatically make it trusted - but at least you have some chance to start trusting it.

You mention the "event-stream" incident there. Definitely, even when the source is audited, the distribution process is also prone to problems. I'm involved in one initiative to improve the security of that process, http://reproducible-builds.org/ .

Lyberta wrote:It’s time to start a war on Open Source. Open Source is the enemy. (...) Open Source is produced exclusively by extremely evil or very stupid people. (...) All Open Source supporters are to be treated the same way as Alt-Right people

Hmm. I consider myself a Free Software and Open Source supporter, and if you are so openly hostile to me, this makes me wonder how I should treat you.

Lyberta wrote:now we have tons of MIT/BSD/whatever spyware.

I like how the F-Droid appstore for Android not only just contains Open Source apps, but also marks any apps that contain 'Anti-Features' so as a user you are aware and can make your own choice

raboof wrote:I consider myself a Free Software and Open Source supporter, and if you are so openly hostile to me, this makes me wonder how I should treat you.

Open Source was evil from the start. The idea it that they wanted to market "free software" to businesses so businesses can flood the market with "ethical spyware". It is extremely evil to support Open Source.

I wondered why Free Software Foundation didn't fight hard against it until I've discovered that they are just a bunch of two faced back stabbing tone policing bastards.

I'm openly and extremely hostile towards Open Source movement.

I'm openly and extremely hostile towards Free Software Foundation.

I do support Free Software as idea but I haven't seen it done right and I can't name any good people, well, maybe Leah Rowe of Libreboot. Yeah, Libreboot is cool but it solves a very narrow issue.

Lyberta wrote:

raboof wrote:I consider myself a Free Software and Open Source supporter, and if you are so openly hostile to me, this makes me wonder how I should treat you.

The idea it that they wanted to market "free software" to businesses

This is fairly accurate: Open Source was coined for situations where the main focus is the practical advantages of open collaboration models, more than the fundamental political and moral underpinnings that characterize Free Software.

I don't think these are necessarily at odds, by the way: a situation where a company doesn't care about licenses and just wants to make money, and a person who feels politically and morally close to the principles Free Software, may very well find each other in creating some Open Source code.

Lyberta wrote:so businesses can flood the market with "ethical spyware".

I don't believe this was the intent (What does "ethical spyware" even mean?). Sure, there are probably some, but I believe them to be the minority - and certainly not *all* of Open Source.

I'm openly and extremely hostile towards Free Software Foundation.

I read your article and from what I gathered it seems like you're hostile towards the FSF because they achieved their goals but they don't care about other things that you think they should care about. i.e. They want software to be free and don't do anything to prevent said free software also being malware. Is that correct or did I completely misunderstand your position?

You also say 50% of free software is malware, I don't believe you could have hard stats to back up this claim but if you do I'm very interested to see them. If you mean free software from companies like Adobe, Microsoft, Google etc then I could easily believe 100% of it is malware, but that's cherry picking.

raboof wrote:a person who feels politically and morally close to the principles Free Software, may very well find each other in creating some Open Source code.

This is why it's important to not use the term open source if you care about free software at all.

All free software is by definition also Open Source. But not all Open Source software is free. By mixing the terms up so casually people can be easily misled. For a long while I thought Linux Sampler was free software, but it's not. So be specific, if you mean free software say free software. If you mean Open Source say nothing :p

d.healey wrote:I read your article and from what I gathered it seems like you're hostile towards the FSF because they achieved their goals but they don't care about other things that you think they should care about. i.e. They want software to be free and don't do anything to prevent said free software also being malware. Is that correct or did I completely misunderstand your position?

It is correct. I think FSF should have spent half of the effort on combating malicious features in free software because this is very hard. We need awareness. We need people to understand that just reading the license is not enough.

d.healey wrote:You also say 50% of free software is malware, I don't believe you could have hard stats to back up this claim but if you do I'm very interested to see them. If you mean free software from companies like Adobe, Microsoft, Google etc then I could easily believe 100% of it is malware, but that's cherry picking.

I was very angry when I wrote that so there is hyperbole involved. But telemetry in free software is becoming more and more ubiquitous.

Lyberta wrote:It is correct. I think FSF should have spent half of the effort on combating malicious features in free software because this is very hard. We need awareness. We need people to understand that just reading the license is not enough.

I agree that malware in free software is a terrible thing but I don't think there is much anyone can do about it. RMS has said many times that free software is not a perfect defence against malware but it gives users a fighting chance whereas with proprietary software of course the users are powerless. I don't think the FSF can be blamed though, their goal is free software not malware free free software

Do you have some suggestions on how malware in free software can be prevented?

d.healey wrote:Do you have some suggestions on how malware in free software can be prevented?

Yes, I'm gonna write the article after I convert my site from Jekyll to Hugo. Both systems suck but Hugo sucks less.

Lyberta wrote:

d.healey wrote:Do you have some suggestions on how malware in free software can be prevented?

Yes, I'm gonna write the article after I convert my site from Jekyll to Hugo. Both systems suck but Hugo sucks less.

Excellent, I'm genuinely interested to hear your ideas.