
The “Anyone but Richard M Stallman” (ABRMS) License - mdturnerphys
https://github.com/landondyer/kasm/blob/master/LICENSE
======
Afforess
I aspire to make enough important and influential decisions some day to earn
the sort of hatred RMS has.

~~~
Mikeb85
No kidding. Despite the hate, look where open-source was pre-RMS, and where it
is now. Look how important GNU tools are, GCC, Linux, and so on...

~~~
sinxoveretothex
How would we judge that?

Per Wikipedia, Stallman wrote the GPLv1 in 1989. I wasn't even born then.

Moreover, I doubt this is a good argument. Would the Mill
(youtube.com/watch?v=QyzlEYspqTI) be possible using Free Software (consider
the GCC exceptions were pushed _way_ too late, circa 2009 per gnu.org
[https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-
exception-3.1.html](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-3.1.html))?

Would Linux even exist without at least BSD having been released?

I'm more of a copyleft than a 'BSD libertarian', but I don't think we can look
at RMS's contribution by comparing what was before and what is now if for no
other reason because it's impossible to separate what is due to copyleft, what
is due to BSD-style and what is due to a mixture of both.

------
shmerl
Sounds like a very dumb license.

~~~
vezzy-fnord
Not to mention proprietary.

~~~
r3bl
How is this proprietary? The license says that you can do anything you want to
do with it.

This sounds pretty similar to WTFPL[0], and WTFPL is listed[1] as a GPL-
compatible free software license by the FSF.

0 - [http://www.wtfpl.net/](http://www.wtfpl.net/)

1 - [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-
list.en.html#WTFPL](http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#WTFPL)

~~~
shmerl
_> How is this proprietary? The license says that you can do anything you want
to do with it._

Exceptions limiting freedom of its usage make it non FOSS.

~~~
r3bl
Yup, that makes it both open source incompatible and free software
incompatible. My mistake. Thanks for pointing that out.

------
betolink
This is a stupid "license"... I rather like the "DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO
PUBLIC LICENSE" that I use from time to time
[https://github.com/betolink/snowgl](https://github.com/betolink/snowgl) >
[http://www.wtfpl.net/txt/copying/](http://www.wtfpl.net/txt/copying/)

------
mdturnerphys
I came across this due to a search-engine suggestion when searching for a
certain xkcd comic [1]. Previous discussion here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6822005](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6822005)

[1] [http://www.xkcd.com/225/](http://www.xkcd.com/225/)

~~~
the_af
Important: the author comments in that thread and claims it's satire. I think
it's in poor taste, but I'm relieved to know this isn't truly intended to be
used.

------
flatfilefan
To be, or not to be- that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to
suffer RMS The slings and arrows of outrageous Fortune 500 Or to take arms
against a sea of troubles, And by opposing GNU end them.

------
informatimago
LOL

I wonder why the guy doesn't want RMS to use his software, but his ABRMS has
the same virality as the GPL!

ROFL

~~~
detaro
> _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._

from
[http://www.dadhacker.com/blog/?p=2106](http://www.dadhacker.com/blog/?p=2106).
via
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6822190](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6822190)

------
liquidzoot
Rude.

