Re: [dev] arrow in the knee because of the GNU GPL???
Could you describe to us what *exactly* did happen to you? see [0] [0] http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-took-an-arrow-in-the-knee
Re: [dev] arrow in the knee because of the GNU GPL???
On 25 June 2014 12:49, Calvin Morrison mutanttur...@gmail.com wrote: Could you describe to us what *exactly* did happen to you? see [0] [0] http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-took-an-arrow-in-the-knee But more seriously, GNU freedom is the same kind of 'freedom' that is promised by communists. It's actually not very free. If you craft your words enough, and trick people enough, then they will believe it is free, while being coerced into helping the 'greater good' Free should mean anyone can take my code and do what they please with it. Somewhat free is usually like, they can do whatever they want, but leave my name on it. GNU Free is, sure you can use it, but you need to contribute back any changes you make or else.
Re: [dev] arrow in the knee because of the GNU GPL???
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 12:52:33PM -0400, Calvin Morrison wrote: On 25 June 2014 12:49, Calvin Morrison mutanttur...@gmail.com wrote: Could you describe to us what *exactly* did happen to you? see [0] [0] http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-took-an-arrow-in-the-knee But more seriously, GNU freedom is the same kind of 'freedom' that is promised by communists. It's actually not very free. If you craft your words enough, and trick people enough, then they will believe it is free, while being coerced into helping the 'greater good' Free should mean anyone can take my code and do what they please with it. Somewhat free is usually like, they can do whatever they want, but leave my name on it. GNU Free is, sure you can use it, but you need to contribute back any changes you make or else. I respect your opinion. We can start another thread on why GNU GPL/MIT/BSD with your arguments. Don't take personnaly, but I already answer countless times those arguments. Let's try to keep this thread on the topic (this time I started a specific thread!): I would like to know how *exactly* (the details), of how FRIGN was hurt by the GNU GPL licences. A real case. I'm extremly serious about it. Because it can change my mind on licences for good. -- Sylvain
Re: [dev] arrow in the knee because of the GNU GPL???
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 12:52:33PM -0400, Calvin Morrison wrote: On 25 June 2014 12:49, Calvin Morrison mutanttur...@gmail.com wrote: Could you describe to us what *exactly* did happen to you? see [0] [0] http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-took-an-arrow-in-the-knee But more seriously, GNU freedom is the same kind of 'freedom' that is promised by communists. It's actually not very free. This is just your very personal opinion, but you generalize it. If you craft your words enough, and trick people enough, then they will believe it is free, while being coerced into helping the 'greater good' The 'greater good' isn't a good but a bad thing in your opinion? Free should mean anyone can take my code and do what they please with it. Again that's your very personal opinion. Please don't try do define what 'free' should mean for other people. Somewhat free is usually like, they can do whatever they want, but leave my name on it. That's not the definition of 'free', but of the BSD software license. GNU Free is, sure you can use it, but you need to contribute back any changes you make or else. Obviously you don't like that thought very much. I'd like to state that nobody is forced or coerced into using or further developing GPL licensed software. I personally think that the terms of the GPL have lead to some very beautiful things. The Linux kernel wouldn't be where it is today if people would not be forced to contribute their patches. And please do not let us discuess the BSD vs. the Linux kernel now… The term 'freedom' in relation to the GPL is best understood when it is applied to the codebase, not the user (primarily). The GPL inforces that the codebase stays free. Kind regards, -Alex
Re: [dev] arrow in the knee because of the GNU GPL???
If you craft your words enough, and trick people enough, then they will believe it is free, while being coerced into helping the 'greater good' The 'greater good' isn't a good but a bad thing in your opinion? It's a great thing in my opinion, but coercion isn't really a good way to achieve those ends. Voluntaryism is much more powerful than the use of force Free should mean anyone can take my code and do what they please with it. Again that's your very personal opinion. Please don't try do define what 'free' should mean for other people. Free - not under the control or in the power of another; able to act or be done as one wishes. There is nothing free about the GPL codebase. It's a vendor lock in just as is Mac or Windows. you build your platform on it, and eventually you'll need to make some code changes, and there you are forced to stick with linux and contribute back. Somewhat free is usually like, they can do whatever they want, but leave my name on it. That's not the definition of 'free', but of the BSD software license. I said somewhat free, and yes i was referring mostly too bsd here, they also have several other clauses as well though GNU Free is, sure you can use it, but you need to contribute back any changes you make or else. Obviously you don't like that thought very much. I'd like to state that nobody is forced or coerced into using or further developing GPL licensed software. the codebase isn't free, it comes with a lot of baggage, like you just said This really in my mind relates to how modern day socialists compare to libertarians. Positive vs Negative rights. You say everyone is 'free' but really it's only if they agree to the very specific conditions which you setup in the license. In the same way providing positive rights to people, like the right to housing or healthcare is conditional on their agreement to the conditions of the society that they were forced into. Calvin
Re: [dev] arrow in the knee because of the GNU GPL???
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 01:52:14PM -0400, Calvin Morrison wrote: If you craft your words enough, and trick people enough, then they will believe it is free, while being coerced into helping the 'greater good' The 'greater good' isn't a good but a bad thing in your opinion? It's a great thing in my opinion, but coercion isn't really a good way to achieve those ends. Voluntaryism is much more powerful than the use of force Free should mean anyone can take my code and do what they please with it. Again that's your very personal opinion. Please don't try do define what 'free' should mean for other people. Free - not under the control or in the power of another; able to act or be done as one wishes. There is nothing free about the GPL codebase. Yes, there is something 'free' about the GPL codebase, whether you like that or not. 'Free' as in you are free to look at the source code to be able to understand how it works. In contrast to the BSD license the GPL enforced that it stays that way. Otherwise some greedy person can take the work of individuals who donated their work to the general public, make modifications and nobody but them selfs profits. I like a lot of BSD licensed software and really agree with the underlaying mindset. I just don't get the GPL bashing. It's a vendor lock in just as is Mac or Windows. you build your platform on it, and eventually you'll need to make some code changes, and there you are forced to stick with linux and contribute back. That's simply not true. If you develop some software _on_ Linux it easy to switch to any other UNIXlike system. Where is there a vendor lock in that would not exist on a BSD system? and there you are forced to stick with linux Why is that? That problem does not arise in the moment you want to make changes to the underlying system. If you choose a platform for developing software, make sure to understand the license. The Linux kernel gives you the _chance_ to verify, understand and improve the kernel, nobody forces you to. There is no communism here. and there you are forced to […] contribute back. I don't see the bad thing here, sorry. If you do not like to contribute, why even bother with FLOSS like systems? Go buy a Windows license. Somewhat free is usually like, they can do whatever they want, but leave my name on it. That's not the definition of 'free', but of the BSD software license. I said somewhat free, and yes i was referring mostly too bsd here, they also have several other clauses as well though GNU Free is, sure you can use it, but you need to contribute back any changes you make or else. Obviously you don't like that thought very much. I'd like to state that nobody is forced or coerced into using or further developing GPL licensed software. the codebase isn't free, it comes with a lot of baggage, like you just said This really in my mind relates to how modern day socialists compare to libertarians. Positive vs Negative rights. You say everyone is 'free' but really it's only if they agree to the very specific conditions which you setup in the license. The license is very clear and primarily states what you _may_ do with the code. If you want to bash software 'vendors' for their licensing go knock on the door of Microsoft and Apple. In the same way providing positive rights to people, like the right to housing or healthcare is conditional on their agreement to the conditions of the society that they were forced into. That's the main difference. Nobody forces or coerces you into using GPL licensed software. That in stark contrast to the healthcare system of the nation you life in. I'll end with some purposely bold words: If communism was like the GPL, it would have worked out Kind regards, -Alex
Re: [dev] arrow in the knee because of the GNU GPL???
The GPL inforces that the codebase stays free. No, all free licenses enforce a continually free codebase. If I release under MIT or BSD, that code that I release will always be free and there's nothing anybody else can do about it. GPL tries to control what other people do with code they wrote. In my opinion that's kinda f'ed up. GPL does not protect your code, any license will do that, GPL has no additional effect on your code above what MIT/BSD does. The only place GPL works differently is on code that is written by somebody else. Granted, GPL did a lot of good, it created a free software culture and made Linux what it is. Ubuntu has also done a lot of good by getting people started in Linux, but that doesn't make it suckless. Regards, --Phil
Re: [dev] arrow in the knee because of the GNU GPL???
Granted, GPL did a lot of good, it created a free software culture and made Linux what it is. Ubuntu has also done a lot of good by getting people started in Linux, but that doesn't make it suckless. You have cause and effect written incorrectly. Free software existed first, then licenses were created afterward to protect them.
Re: [dev] arrow in the knee because of the GNU GPL???
You have cause and effect written incorrectly. Free software existed first, then licenses were created afterward to protect them. Ok, well then in popularized or spread free software. My point was just that has done good doesn't justify its continued use, and doesn't make it suckless. That's all.
Re: [dev] arrow in the knee because of the GNU GPL???
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 03:21:01AM +0900, Philip Rushik wrote: The GPL inforces that the codebase stays free. No, all free licenses enforce a continually free codebase. If I release under MIT or BSD, that code that I release will always be free and there's nothing anybody else can do about it. Yes, you are right about that, I wasn't clear enough. GPL tries to control what other people do with code they wrote. In my opinion that's kinda f'ed up. GPL does not protect your code, any license will do that, GPL has no additional effect on your code above what MIT/BSD does. The only place GPL works differently is on code that is written by somebody else. Not necessarily by somebody else. Granted, GPL did a lot of good, it created a free software culture and made Linux what it is. Ubuntu has also done a lot of good by getting people started in Linux, but that doesn't make it suckless. I never fully understood why people use Ubuntu. Kind regards, -Alex
Re: [dev] arrow in the knee because of the GNU GPL???
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 04:07:14AM +0900, Philip Rushik wrote: You have cause and effect written incorrectly. Free software existed first, then licenses were created afterward to protect them. Ok, well then in popularized or spread free software. My point was just that has done good doesn't justify its continued use, and doesn't make it suckless. That's all. Well, in my opinion Linux is a nice example of the positive effect the GPL has. I hope that many other projects will choose the GPL as their license. Please note that I do not think that it's the right license for everything and I for sure don't want to suggest it would be the right license for the suckless.org software. Kind regards, -Alex
Re: [dev] arrow in the knee because of the GNU GPL???
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 5:30 AM, Kurt Van Dijck dev.k...@vandijck-laurijssen.be wrote: On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 03:21:01AM +0900, Philip Rushik wrote: The GPL inforces that the codebase stays free. No, all free licenses enforce a continually free codebase. If I release under MIT or BSD, that code that I release will always be free and there's nothing anybody else can do about it. Your opinion is about static code. GPL tries to control what other people do with code they wrote. Any license controls what other people can or may do with the code. In my opinion that's kinda f'ed up. GPL does not protect your code, any license will do that, In my understanding, GPL enforces that derived work of your code will still be free to its users. This covers 2 major aspects: * One cannot repackage or modify GPL software and make it non-free I think that is a guarantee that your code will _stay_ free, even after modifications. * People that are not using the software, have absolutely no rights. If I modify my linux kernel on my system, even Linus himself has no rights to see. Strictly speaking, only users of my computer that runs that kernel can force me to give the sources. Am I wrong in this? I don't think you quite understood what I meant. All licenses control what people can do with your code, yes, I didn't say anything to the contrary. I said it tries to control what people do with _their_ code, not your code. If someone mades a modification, that modification is something that they wrote, not you, GPL takes away that that person's right to their own creation (their modification, which is their own work). Nobody can take your code and make it non-free under a MIT/BSD license, they can only make their modifications non-free. That's the problem with the GPL, (in my opinion), it has no effect on your code, but only on modifications, which are NOT your code. And the whole thing about non-users, of course, but that doesn't really affect anybody, and I don't think it's ever been part of the argument. Regards, --Phil
Re: [dev] arrow in the knee because of the GNU GPL???
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 12:52:33 -0400 Calvin Morrison mutanttur...@gmail.com wrote: Free should mean anyone can take my code and do what they please with it. Somewhat free is usually like, they can do whatever they want, but leave my name on it. GNU Free is, sure you can use it, but you need to contribute back any changes you make or else. I disagree that contribute back or else is a fair description of the GPL. You aren't forced to release your modified versions, or share your copies of the program - see [0]. I would love to hear your perspective on why it feels like contribute back or else communism. Like Sylvain I am still making up my mind on the issue, but the relevant point I see is this: we all agree that software should be free, but through what means do we wish that freeness to be enforced? Legal action -- which amounts to the use of force -- is GNU's answer. I would rather closed source software be banished by people's refusal to use it, but this may be wishful thinking. Meanwhile, there are modern issues today (NSA, etc.) that make free software vital regardless of longterm ideals. The GPL, while it may not reflect our philosophical viewpoints, may be a tool worth using to make free software a little more ubiquitous. Caleb [0] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic
Re: [dev] arrow in the knee because of the GNU GPL???
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 06:33:17AM +0900, Philip Rushik wrote: Nobody can take your code and make it non-free under a MIT/BSD license, they can only make their modifications non-free. I am confused. The BSD 3-Clause License[0] states the following: Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: Specifically in regards to binary redistribution: 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. The MIT/X license allows for this as well. Am I missing something here? [0] http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause
Re: [dev] arrow in the knee because of the GNU GPL???
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:30:28PM +0200, Kurt Van Dijck wrote: In my understanding, GPL enforces that derived work of your code will still be free to its users. This covers 2 major aspects: * One cannot repackage or modify GPL software and make it non-free I think that is a guarantee that your code will _stay_ free, even after modifications. * People that are not using the software, have absolutely no rights. If I modify my linux kernel on my system, even Linus himself has no rights to see. Strictly speaking, only users of my computer that runs that kernel can force me to give the sources. Am I wrong in this? Nope, you are right. Let me add some infos. You have other GNU GPL licences, for instance: - GNU *lesser* GPL: allows a closed source component to be linked to the component protected by the license. Perfect for middleware for instance. That's why most the libs are protected with a *lesser* version of the GNU GPL. - GNU *affero* GPL: this extends the GNU GPL to software components providing services over the network. For instance, the source code of a HTTP server protected with this licence would have to be provided to users. (this license is extremly rare, I have never seen it, except on some of my components ;) ). - *linux* GNU GPLv2. The linux GNU GPLv2 is a modified version of a plain GNU GPLv2: closed source userland programs are allowed till they are normal. Basically, a device driver, even in userland is covered by the GNU GPLv2. Closed source device drivers are tolerated in the linux kernel (for various reasons), but in no way are legal. - GNU GPLv3: it's very hard to cheat it, because written by legalists. v2-v3 Highlights: Adds protection against those who open some code, but put software patents on that very code. Adds protection against those who open the code, but make it unmodifiable by users by a technical mean (tivo-ization, I may be wrong, but it one of the main things Linus T. does not like with v3). regards, -- Sylvain
Re: [dev] arrow in the knee because of the GNU GPL???
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 8:02 AM, Dimitris Papastamos s...@2f30.org wrote: I am confused. The BSD 3-Clause License[0] states the following: Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: Specifically in regards to binary redistribution: 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. The MIT/X license allows for this as well. Am I missing something here? If I release some code under BSD/MIT, on say, my website, then somebody takes my code, compiles it and offers that binary form on their website, then the code is still freely available on my website, they haven't made it non-free. They can't make me stop offering the source code, the law would protect me if they tried. Regards, --Phil
Re: [dev] arrow in the knee because of the GNU GPL???
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 08:24:23AM +0900, Philip Rushik wrote: On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 8:02 AM, Dimitris Papastamos s...@2f30.org wrote: I am confused. The BSD 3-Clause License[0] states the following: Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: Specifically in regards to binary redistribution: 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. The MIT/X license allows for this as well. Am I missing something here? If I release some code under BSD/MIT, on say, my website, then somebody takes my code, compiles it and offers that binary form on their website, then the code is still freely available on my website, they haven't made it non-free. They can't make me stop offering the source code, the law would protect me if they tried. Ah, of course yes. Sorry too late for me.
