> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com > Sent: Tuesday, 14 June 2005 3:51 AM > To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion > Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] Re: Digium Website Update: > Asterisk BusinessEdition > > On Mon, 2005-06-13 at 18:20 +0200, Esben Stien wrote: > > "trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com"; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > Protecting freedoms by putting limits on (thus restricting > > > freedoms). Interesting concept. > > > > I need to repeat here. The gpl's purpose is to protect the freedoms > > that comes with free software. So, you have only the freedoms that > > comes with free software as defined by the FSF. You are not > allowed to > > do what you like. You are constrained to the freedoms that > follows the > > software and I think that is a very interesting concept. > > > > Its not a freedom if its a limit. That is my point. The GPL > doesnt give freedoms it takes them away by putting limits on > other peoples code, not the original authors. Now if the > author is ok with infringing on the rights of others then the > GPL is a good choice, however if the original author is > truely fore freedom in the code process, not the double speak > freedom that FSF talks about (where freedom means taking away > abilities) then they should not follow like sheep and repeat > what the FSF says (which on its face is an outright lie since > its not freedom that it grants). >
Ahem, The GPL is about the freedown of the code, not the freedom of the individual > > > > copyright and license to use are different. > > > > I never claimed otherwise. > > If you were the person that was quoting the FSF as fact then you did. > Too bad it got cut out, but you can always go back to the > original post that was claiming freedom means putting limits > on people other than yourself. > > > > > > > You can technically put software out there with no copyright but > > > under the gpl license > > > > Then there would be no one to enforce the license, which > would be bad. > > > > Why do you cut out what I said when I addressed that point? > I am begining to think that you are doing it intentionally now. > > > > > it only restricts *their* code (ie modifications). > > > > Yes, but we also want all modifications to be free > > > > 'we' or you specifically? We is quite a loaded word. The > FSF makes a false claim that it *protects* freedoms, when all > it does is limit the freedoms of others to write code. > Specifically if I take a program and modify it, the original > is still under whatever license I got it in, but > *my* code, the modifications are MINE not the original > authors. The original author has NO right to claim that it > is their work, nor do they have copyright on *my* code. But > by releasing it under a GPL they can force me to use a > license that I may not agree with. This is the reason that I > dont contribute to GPL products, I dont like the idea of > someone else dictating to me how I will distribute *my* code. > > The default GPL makes it a lciense violation to run GPL code > on a commercial (or even BSD) system. Extra stuff has to be > put into the GPL license to say 'its ok if you link this > against non GPL libraries and such'. That is not the > default, so technically unless someone did that putting a > stock GPL license has other limitations on its mere use. At > least historically libc on aix, hpux, sunos (4/5), irix were > all not GPL libc (I dont know with solaris now they added a > bunch of gpl stuff at one point). If any of the GPL licensed > software did not take an overt action to say its ok to run it > on those operating systems then its a license violation. > > That level of selective enforcement also calls into question > the legal standing of the license (if certain sections are > not enforced the whole agreement can be voided on first court > challenge). > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCLinkingOverControl ledInterface > for linking proprietary code to libraries - overt actions > required to make it work right > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCGPLCommercially > for reading up on how the license affects others who write code later > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCGPLIncompatibleAlone > for reading on how you cant really link against libc on a > commercial operating system (or anything with a license that > is not compatible with the GPL, which BSD isnt becuase it > allows someone to take it, write *their own* code in addition > to it and not give *their own* code out. > Thus by default you cant run GPL software on a BSD licensed > system, nor any commercial system *unless* the developer took > an overt action to say this is ok (default GPL it is not ok). > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCDistributeWithSour ceOnInternet > for the lack of personal privacy that the GPL forces on those > that choose to release under it, specifically you *must* > (section 3) provide a mailing address. If you value your > privacy and dont want everyone to have your address you must > pay extra to get a po box so that you, as the author of the > software, can comply with section 3 of the GPL - providing > copies by mailorder on physical media. This is *required* > not optional. > > The list goes on... > > > > > the cost of restricting freedoms on others and what they > can do with > > > their code > > > > Yes, by using the GPL you restrict everyone to the four freedoms > > defined in the free software definition. This is exactly > what we want. > > > > Again with the 'we'. Personally I only speak for myself, but > I do notice that you again truncated what I was saying > especially the clarification of "their code" namely not the > copyright holder, but lets say I download some GPL software > and code some stuff for it. I then give it to one friend, > technically I am distributing it, and thus have to give away > all *MY* code under the GPL. So if you really do mean that > you want everyone to do it 'your' way or no way at all, then > yes I agree that is all the GPL does. It protects nothing, > especially with the legally questionable practice of > 'selective enforcement' which has the power to nullify the > GPL in its entirety, but more importantly, it just creates a > lack of freedom for developers. > > > > > The BSD license for example lets your code remain free > while giving > > > people the freedom to create code of their own, as a > modification of > > > yours, and use their code how they want. > > > > This is exactly the reason I choose GPL, because it doesn't allow > > people to do whatever they want. They only have the freedoms that > > comes with free software, which is exactly what we want. > This ensures > > that the code stays free and any modification too it is also free. > > This is what we want and you obviously want something else. > > > > That *MY* code? Or were you too busy deleting my > explanations that its > *MY* code that I am concerned with not yours. If I write > code I should be able to choose how I release it, not you. > My code is mine, not yours. My code was written by me, not > you. My code is copyrighted by myself, not you. My code > should come with the freedom to release it how I want, after > all it is my property, or is it? > > I want the freedom of *choice*. The ability to *choose* how > *I* release > *my* code. Nothing more. You seem to think that if people > have choice then the world will end, and that choice is > exactly what the GPL fights against. You keep saying that is > what 'we' want, so it must be true, whomever 'we' happens to be. > > I said this before, but you deleted it and acted like I never > said it so here goes again.. Your code would remain as free > as you choose to make it. My code, which potentially is not > yet written, should be my choice to decide how free I want to > make it. The GPL does not protect the freedom of your code, > all it does is restrict the freedom of *my* code. > If you choose to give the code away free, even without a > license, just a copyright, it would remain as free as you > want it. It would be as protected under the copyright law as > it is under the GPL. GPL does not add anything to the > protection of your code in that regard. However by choosing > to believe in freedom and choice and not going with a license > that has the stated goal of limiting freedom and choice (ie > the GPL) of a class of people they aparently do not like and > do not care for (ie > developers) you restrict the freedom and choice of *my* code, > which is under my copyright and my ownership. > > > > When we, the saints of the church of emacs, speaks about > free software > > we are referring to the freedoms that comes with free software > > (nothing more, nothing less). Free software has a definite > definition > > for us, which is that of the fsf. > > > > Yes free from all but choice of developers. Damn those > devlopers lets do away with them then the world will be > better!! All that will remain are the brainwashed people who > think that freedom means restricting choice. > > > > > If people want your version they can always get that from > you, and > > > so it is intact as 'free'. > > > > Yes, but we also want the modifications to the software to > be free. We > > basically want what's defined in the GPL. > > > > Ahh so now it *finally* comes out. You want my code to be > licensed under what you feel is appropriate. You want my > code as if it were your own. You want control over me as a > devleoper by taking away my choices as a developer. > > > > > It does not give full unrestricted modification clauses. > > > > You can modify it as much as you want as long as the modifications > > also are free, just as the original code. > > > > Yes those modifications are *MY* property, my code, my work, > and under my copyright. By removing my choices as to how I > choose to deal with my code, the work I personally put into > something, that is your idea of freedom? Where is the > freedom to me personally to license my code the way I want to? > > > > Your version which you released 'free' would still be > there. In its > > > unmodified glory. > > > > By using the GPL, we also ensure that any modification to > it, be free. > > This is desired. > > > > Yes you keep saying that it is desired that choice be > removed. That freedom to select a license of the authors > choosing is specifically not desired. That freedom and > choice are not what the FSF is all about (according to > stallman its about soliciting money becuase he was going > broke when people stopped buying his tapes of emacs for $150, > its all about the money (to him personally). Why gpl 3.0 is > talking about > *charging* people to use GPLed code (lets see who the check > gets written to, I put my money on the FSF collecting - after > all they want people and infact encourage that people sign > over the copyright to the FSF which means that in many > instances they would be the *only* ones that could be paid.. > Interesting set of events... > > > > > The GPL does not ensure freedom to all > > > > It ensures the freedoms that are defined in the free software > > definition. > > > > Yes freedoms to everyone but future developers. I see, damn > those developers we could make the world a better place without them! > > Btw why dont you get a new response? All out of quotes from gnu.org? > > > > > it works like a parasite and infects future code > > > > Yes, this parasitic effect is exactly what we want. > > > > This is getting boring, it was fun to show how foolish the > gpl is, how costly it can be to poorer devleopers, and how > silly it can be with its selective enforcement but you arent > even trying to get new quotes from the FSF. > > Although I do find it intersting that you admit that the > whole point of the FSF is to infect the software development > world like a parasite ensuring that people get sick of it and > decide they no longer want to use it. > > > > > All it does is force others who write code to be assimilated into > > > the same doctrine. > > > > Yes, which is exactly what we want. If you choose to use > GPL code, you > > have to follow the rules. > > > > Actually that is debatable, and in about 3-6 months I will > have some time on my hands and plan on challenging the GPL > under selective enforcement and getting it tossed out in > court. That should end this silly thread. All I have to do > is find every GPL license that doesnt specifically allow use > on commercial operating systems or other non GPL licensed > free systems ... shouldnt be too hard since most people are > so brainwashed by the FSF/GPL they dont even read it to see > what they have to do. That might even be fun. > > > > > I guess what I am trying to say is that GPL does little > to protect > > > the original author > > > > The copyright protects the original author by law. > > > > Right, that was my whole point, why did you cut out the part > where I said that? I am now convinced you are doing that > intentionally. Too many times have you omited what I said > just to get your comment in. > > I guess that is 'desired' as you have been stating that the > GPL does not protect hte original author. As such It does > not protect freedom of code at all, since the original author > controls that. All it does is restrict freedoms. > > > > > it removes freedoms from subsequent authors by forcing them to > > > license in the same way. > > > > Yes, and that's what I love about free software. The software stays > > free. > > > > Are you really this dense or are you so brainwashed that you > cant grasp the fact that if it werent for other licenses you > most likely wouldnt have what you have right now. > > > > > it doesnt guarantee the freedom of subsequent authors, it > curtails > > > that freedom. > > > > Once again, it only guarantee freedoms that follow free software. > > > > Yes, doesnt protect the author of the software, infringes > freedomes from all who get the software. You have said that. > Many times infact. > > > > > And you can copyright (and infact do) without the GPL. > > > > Yes, but we use the gpl to protect the freedoms that > follows free software. > > > > That isnt what you were saying before. You said that it > doesnt protect the original author, nor does it guarantee > that the code is infact kept free, why the GPL 3.0 is talking > about charging people who modify the code in house and dont > distro it. So even if you do not distro the code it appears > that isnt good enough. Maybe its just that I am not a > communist hippie type who believes that the information wants > to be free (information cant want anything). > > Why is it that free software needs all this extra protection? > I dont think its inferior to other code, so I dont think it > needs extra protection. Why is it that you feel so strongly > that free software is inferior? > > > > > > The GPL is *not* a copyright it is a license for use. > They are very > > > different things. You can copyright something and distro > it without > > > GPLing it. > > > > Indeed. > > > > Why did you say that it was a copyright? You cut that part > out (again, > sigh) but you did say it was the same thing. You really > should learn to read before you click send. > > > > > it does however curtail the freedoms of any subsequent > authors that > > > enhance the code. > > > > Which again, it's the desired effect. > > > > Ahh you admit that the point of the GPL is to curtail freedom > not grant it. I see.. it doesnt protect the author, it > doesnt grant freedoms, it inhibits them. That is the desired > effect, you have said that many times now. > > > > > subsequent authors now have *no* choice in how they > license it, they > > > are forced to license it the same way as you, which curtails > > > freedom. > > > > Yes, glad you understand cause this is the purpose. The > freedoms that > > follow free software will continue to follow it and neither you nor > > anyone else can change that. > > > > Ahh yes here it is again, you are further confirming under no > uncertain terms that it protects nothing, but infringes on > freedoms of others. I see. > > But I plan on changing it due to certain terms that are yet > unchallenged with the GPL. Infact I plan on flaunting it so > that someone sues me and we can put this to end once and for > all. Should be in 3-6 months when I have a little more time. > Hopefully someone does sue me (I bet no one does because > they know they will lose and the GPL will be void). > > > > > The modifications are the *only* difference between what > you release > > > and what they release, so if they use your code as a base > and make > > > changes to suit a particular need, their code, which they > did write > > > all of, cannot be licensed how they choose > > > > This is exactly what we want. > > > > > the parasitic nature of the GPL means that their modifications, > > > *their* code, must also be GPLed > > > > You're just explaining what we want. > > > > Yes I kept saying that the GPL protects nothing and infringes > on freedoms. Glad that is what you are finally admitting > too. Maybe the webpage should be updated to clearly state > this is the goal instead of lying to people about what the goal is. > > > > > The GPL doesnt protect freedom, it curtails freedom of future > > > developers. > > > > The GPL protects the freedoms that comes with free software. > > > > But you just said it doesnt. Now either you are lying or > just maknig stuff up to take an opposite approach to me. It > does not protect anything, it does however infringe upon > freedoms of developers (and largely only developers). > > > > More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the > users of > > the software: > > > > * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose. > > * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt > it to your > > needs. Access to the source code is a precondition for this. > only for the weak. Learn good development and you wont need it. > > > * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help > your neighbor. > Ahh if only it were a freedom instead of a requirement. > > > * The freedom to improve the program, and release your > improvements > > to the public, so that the whole community benefits. > Access to the > > source code is also a precondition for this. > > > That isnt a freedom, that is the infringement of a freedom. > I should not be forced to give up my property, namely my code > becuase you said so. > > > > Commercial development? > > > > There is nothing wrong with selling free software > > > I am sorrt you cut out everything I said (again) and quoted > me out of context (again). I am thinking this is on purpose > for anything you didnt have a webpage cut and paste for. > > > > Commercial software is software being developed by a business which > > aims to make money from a use of the software. Commercial and > > proprietary software are not the same thing. Most > commercial software > > is proprietary, but there is commercial free software and there is > > non-commercial non-free software > > > > Right and if the author chooses to license it under the BSD > license or hell even the apache license, or hmm lets see any > commercial license. > Gee infact the FSF states any non GPL license then without > overt actions by the author you violate the license by > installing that 'free' > software. > > So you should add the freedom to run any operating system > that is GPLed, so long as you run no other. That isnt always > a choice, but that is what is desired, yes you have said that > many times. > > > > > > and thus reduction in IP rights for any company that uses it. > > > Again, while this goes against the FSF's mantra it *does* > > > > I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. Please > elaborate. > > > > You cut out so much of what I was saying, and at this point I > really dont feel like pulling my old email, you certainly > didnt pull your old one when you cut out my responses to you > (intact and in context, unlike how you treated me, but then I > have always felt that I should treat people better than how > they treat me). > > > > > curtail rights of future developers in forcing them to use a > > > speciifc license for *their* code (ie modifications). > The original > > > authors code would be as free as they choose to make it. > > > > You're just repeating yourself and I'm doing the same in > saying this > > is what we want. > > > > You may disagree, but I certainly see things this way. > > > > Gald you are so brainwashed that you cant see the forest for > the trees. > Had you actually come up with reasonable things I would not > think of you that way, however all you can do is quote the > FSF in response to my comments, which you conviently quoted > out of context and not even complete quotes. My guess is > that the whole statement was too hard for you to respond to > so you have to edit my comments so that you could respond > with the pat answers rather than have a real opinion of your own. > > > I sometimes choose to run a non GPL operating system. that > should be my choice, my freedom to choose. However what is > desired (as you have said many times) the FSF does not see it > that way. The FSF sees that you should run only a GPL > license or get special permission to use GPL code on it. > That is not acceptable to many people, infact I would be > suprised if many people even know of that restriction (link > provided above). I sometimes choose to run some non GPL > software that interacts with GPL software, and the FSF takes > a dim view of that as well. Note they dont say 'free > software' when putting that restriction in they say nonGPL. > Its not about free software, its about forcing everyone into > the same mold, one that does not always fit. > > I must thank you, had it not been for this email I would not > have been inspired to go after the selective enforcement > issue of the GPL and do everything I can to try to get sued > (of course not sueing is just as > bad) for violating the GPL by *gasp* installing it on BSD > (specific apps, I will pick the ones I feel are best for this > purpose) and then have the GPL tossed out in court. > > Selective enforcement is a bad thing, legally speaking. If > you dont protect your assets the court sees to it that you > have none to protect. > > > -- > Trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com Bret McDanel > UK +44 870 340 4605 Germany +49 801 777 555 3402 > US +1 360 207 0479 or +1 516 687 5200 > FreeWorldDialup: 635378 > _______________________________________________ Asterisk-Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
