On 8/31/2014 6:05 PM, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On 31 August 2014 05:24, Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d
<[email protected]> wrote:
And I *do* appreciate that GPL, unlike BSD, can *realistically* be
cross-licensed with a commercial license in a meaningful way and used on
paid commercial software (at least, I *think* so, based on what little
anyone actually *can* comprehend of the incomprehensible GPL).
GPL can be summarised in four simple freedoms. Nothing complicated there.
Maybe so. I hope so. But I wouldn't know.
I can read BSD, MIT or zlib and pretty much understand them. Within
minutes. GPL, it would take me longer just to *read* it let alone
comprehend.
I'm not saying that makes GPL inferior to the others. I'm just saying:
that's one hell of a dense, cryptic, gigantic wall of text. (And yes, I
don't doubt that there are far bigger and less comprehensible legal
documents out there. Like the average software patent ;))
In any case, you do know that there are paid gpl software too, right?
Ardour is a good example of this.
http://ardour.org/download.html
Well, actually, that was pretty much the main point of my paragraph that
you quoted above. So yes, I do know ;) But the link is appreciated.
I *do* agree with Stallman's views, even most of the more extreme ones, I
*want* to like FSF and GPL, but...
...but then there's stuff like that link above.
He keeps harping on how MS is being evil, and GPL v3 prevents the evil MS is
attempting...but jesus crap he *WILL NOT* spend ONE FUCKING WORD on
***HOW*** the shit any of that supposedly works. We're supposed to just
blindly accept all of it just like the good little corporate whores he keeps
trying to crusade that we *shouldn't* be. Shit.
The FSF constantly sounds just like one of those worthless pro-issue #XX /
anti-issue #XX asshats we have to put up with every voting season:
<snip>
Having spoken to RMS in person, I can say that you are far from the
reality of their stance on promoting free software.
Actually, I *am* genuinely glad to hear that, that my impression about
him was apparently completely off the mark after all. Obviously some
things are very good to be wrong about.
I do still wish he would have actually elaborated in that article. Just
enough to actually give *some* idea of *how* this MS thing allegedly[1]
causes problems and *how* the GPLv3 allegedly[1] puts an end to it.
He explained the DVD thing well enough (although I was already aware of
how that worked). I wish he would have done the same to the primary
issues that article was all about in the first place.
[1] I only say "allegedly", not to be contentious, but simply because
*I* wouldn't know...because his article didn't explain it. It just
claimed it and then left it as mere claims. I'd *like* to say "yes,
that's great, I agree and I'm onboard with you", but the article gives
me NO foundation for doing so - only claims. And that just isn't enough
for a point to be made. *THAT's* the main thing I was finding
irritating: The article is almost a bit of a disservice to the very
point he's trying to make. I'd like to believe him, but he gives me no
basis for it.
This is the sort
of attitude I'd expect from a sorely misunderstood teenager. Your
heart might be in the right place, but your actually insulting both
sides of the border.
Fair enough. I would actually be very interested if you could elaborate
more about on his actual stance. Especially (if possible) as it relates
to the other side-discussion on the role and acceptability of a limited
amount of "necessary evil" closed source (such as codes/drivers, even if
only until sufficient OSS alternatives can be made) for the sake of
increasing OSS's foothold, because, well GNU/Linux with a few closed
parts is at least more free than Windows or iOS.
Or, really, any other first-hand insight you'd be willing to offer would
be appreciated.
