Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 02:17:46PM -0600, Gregg Reynolds wrote:
For GPL-licensed software I recommend the term "covenant(ed)
software". So-called "free software", as rms uses the term, is
totally dependent on the GPL, which leverages the State's monopoly on
violence to compel modifiers of the software to offer their mods to
the public.
Free Software as Richard Stallman uses the term is BSD.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
The GPL is merely a "covenant" license which closes the (mathmatical
definition alike) ring of Free Software so all operations don't create a
derivate outside that definition.
Ring of Stallmanism, not free software.
Operations that use Free Software and result in non-Free Software
(outside the ring) are undesireable on his (and others like me) point of
view, which is why he created the GPL, to close the ring.
I've got it. I figured it out. You have all been brainwashed. That is
why people keep repeating the same stuff over and over again. This is a
cult and the websites have brainwashed people.
So you should re-evaluate your assumptions, for the consequence of such
rationalization over false presumptions creates unnecessary divisions in
the community.
Best,
Rui
Some definitions of free:
Not under control of another, having liberty, independent
Able to move in any direction, loose.
etc.
Pulled right from a dictionary
Some tips:
Marxism, Stalinism, etc. may try and redefine their own verison of
freedom, in which case they should call it a lastname-ism, such as
Stallmanism.
You cannot redefine the word freedom on the fly and say that 'but
freedom is actually when you are under control of so and so and you
place all your code into so and so's arms, and you are not able to
loosely take pieces of code from so and so'.
Why can't I redefine the word banana to mean email? I'm sending some
bananas to you. But you can't peel them. According to my website. It
says so. I have redefined the word banana. And my website says so, so it
must be true. Whatever my site says, you BELIEVE.
There is no point in confusing people. Unless, you of course are trying
to control/brainwash them.
The phrase 'free software' is his personal opinion of free software, and
should therefore be called Stallmanism.. not 'free software'. There are
hundreds of personal opinions in/on his licenses and websites which
again makes it Stallmanism, not free software.
FREE OF CHARGE as stated in the GPL, does make it free of charge code
specifically. Restricting people to only have free of charge source code
available, makes it free of charge source code, but not free software
where one can loosely do anything with the software.
I exercise my right to free speech, to be able to say that free software
shall not be called free software unless it follows the dictionary term.
Redefining the word dictionary to mean a book containing only words that
start with the letter Z, is not legitimate. That would be a Larsism, not
freedom.
What stops me from starting MY OWN freedom definition on MY WEBSITE?
That would be Larsism or 505ism. It would NOT be redefining actual freedom.
What stops me from starting my OWN PERSONAL freedom definition on my
site and my own PERSONAL 'freedom ring' that only allows people to join
who have followed MY conditions? That is not freedom, that is Larsism or
505ism according to my own PERSONAL opinions.
YOU HAVE ALL BEEN BRAINWASHED.
THOSE CUTE ANIMALS ON THE GNU WEBSITE WERE A PROPAGANDA TACTIC.
Regards,
L505
