Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 8:16 AM, Zenaan Harkness <[email protected]> wrote:
> > [OA,] *you were asked here
> > https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2020-May/080618.html
> > to provide basic documentation, and you failed to provide any.
>
> O.A, there is something you need to be aware of that perhaps you are missing:
>
> A bit over 30 years ago, Richard Stallman personally and at apparently not
> insignificant personal sacrifice, ushered in the present era of a new social
> contract which despite many years of 'despondent underdog status', now
> finally predominates, and even Microsoft admits they "were on the wrong side
> of history", notwithstanding MS still seems allergic to the word "freedom":
>
> Microsoft on 'wrong side of history' with open source, president Brad Smith
> says
> https://www.windowscentral.com/microsoft-wrong-side-history-open-source-president-brad-smith-says
>
> Steve Ballmer called Linux a "cancer," but Microsoft's current president says
> Microsoft was on the wrong side of history when it comes to open source.
>
> Sean Endicott
> 19 May 2020
>
> Microsoft president Brad Smith recently shared his thoughts on open source
> and how Microsoft approached it at the turn of the century. Speaking at an
> MIT event, Smith stated that "Microsoft was on the wrong side of history when
> open source exploded at the beginning of the century, and I can say that
> about me personally." Smith has been with Microsoft for 25 years and The
> Verge points out that he has been part of several legal battles surrounding
> open source software as one of Microsoft's senior lawyers. Now, Smith has a
> different view.
>
> The Microsoft president added that "The good news is that, if life is long
> enough, you can learn … that you need to change."
> ...
>
> This social contract brought forth by Stallman was likely not the first
> actually free/libre software, but was certainly the explicit naming of, and
> call to live, this ('new') social contract in relation to computer software.
>
> And today there are few who do not understand at least the
> personal/individual benefits (as well as corporate/business benefits) to
> engaging with and embracing libre software, notwithstanding that many do live
> in mere utility and 'personal benefits' rather than the actual higher ethic
> of freedom for one and all as a matter of principle.
>
> Suffice to say, in 2020 it will simply never fly if you try to go against
> this new social contract.
>
> Proprietary, closed hidden and anti competitive simply is not tolerated by
> those you want to be in association with.
>
> From code to protocols, and even your foundation principles, to be "taken
> seriously" there is one option - open and libre protocols, open and libre
> source code, and the reference implementation must be available for download
> and inspection, and libre licensed.
>
> There is no other option.
>
> You have been treated with kid gloves up until a couple days ago, and you've
> been provided abundant notice of the things you must provide, and not even a
> draft protocol document have you provided.
>
> There is a phrase in English, "put up or shut up".
>
> (You may want a different reception in the face of your possible desire "to
> be trusted" and your desire to have folks sign NDAs and accept proprietary
> source code, but that is fanciful wishing in the face of the 30+ years FLOSS
> social contract we live with today - you ain't gonna turn back this clock,
> sonny!)
>
> Good luck,
You don't need to sell free software to a free software advocate.
