On Sun, 21 Dec 2014 18:24:12 +0000
Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce
<digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:

> But nobody cares to prove it to you.  I made an assertion that 
> patches were upstreamed, all the raw data is out there to show 
> that.  If you're unwilling to go look for it, doesn't bother me.
do you see how discussion without proofs has no sense at all?

> >> It's not just corporations using permissive licenses.  Many 
> >> more individuals choose a permissive license for their 
> >> personal projects these days, as opposed to emulating linux 
> >> and choosing the GPL by default like they did in the past.
> > ah, so you saying that they specifically don't want to emulate 
> > Linux
> > success? i knew that!
> Yep, they'd rather be _much_ more successful, like Android or 
> llvm. :D
individial projects. android. llvm. you just divided by zero.

> > from my POV the only sane reason why author can choose 
> > "permissive"
> > license is to steal my code. so he can take my contribution, 
> > use it in
> > proprietary closed-source version and make money from it.
> If he's the author, how is he stealing your code?
i obviously meant "he accepted my patches, and then..."

> Google runs a 
> patched linux kernel on a million servers and mostly doesn't 
> release their patches, did they steal code from all linux kernel 
> contributors?
does google selling that servers with patched kernel? i was talking
about selling the software product (as a standalone product or with
accompanying hardware). using the product in-house to built some system
whose output then sold is ok.

> > i see nothing bad from making money from the product... until 
> > that
> > product uses my code in the way that i can't get free access to
> > product sources AND i can't pass those sources around freely. 
> > oh, i
> > mean "the code i wrote without payment".
> You always have access to your code, just not necessarily to code 
> others wrote on top of your code.
and that is wrong. either not use my code at all, or give me all the
code that is using my code, with rights to redistribute.

> I see, you want "proofs," but "don't know how you can make such 
> proofs."  Awfully convenient to demand proof and not define what 
> you'll accept as proof.
that wasn't me who created such situation.

> As I said before, all the data is out 
> there, you're free to prove it to yourself.
so you have no proofs. q.e.d.

> > you know what... the whole UNIX story started as "guerilla OS". 
> > only
> > when UNIX becames successfull, AT/T begins to invest money in 
> > it. and,
> > btw, did that completely wrong, effectively killed UNIX.
> This is commonly the case, doesn't matter if it's OSS or not.
and that kills the whole your argument about "OSS software can't be
grown to use in 'real work' without corporate support".

> > why do you think that i should care how much money corporations 
> > will
> > get? i know that most people don't give a shit about their 
> > freedom and
> > would sell it for a dime.
> I already explained why: because that means they put more money 
> into permissively-licensed projects like AOSP, clang/llvm, etc.
the projects for which i see no use. i just can't care less.

> Stallman accidentally got some things right
no, that wasn't "accidentally". he is *always* right. and each time RL
goes "by Stallman", people keep telling me that "this was an accident
and pure luck(unluck)". won't buy it.

> That's why the GPL is dying off.
but it isn't. corporate players trying to establish their rules and
subvert FOSS definition, this is true. but what they actually doing is
just preparing another rise of FOSS and GPL. people need some time to
grok that "permissive" licenses are used to took away people's freedom,
and then everything will start all over again.

> I don't see how they're doing anything to you
this is the root of the whole problem.

> Anyway, you seem ideologically committed to the GPL, no matter 
> how flawed it is, so I'll leave it here.
not to GPL itself, but to freedom. for now the best tool we have to
protect our freedom in software industry is GPL. but i really don't
care about tools much, i care for the purpose for which those tools
were designed.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to