Quote: Original post by Sander

Quote: /have no problem with BSD/MIT/Apache/etc
//only GPL

And in one fell swoop you have demonstrated what a hypocrite you are. You're not against free software as long as you can grab it and incorporate it into your own closed source projects. You're exactly the "cheap-ass mudda-focka neighbor" freeloader (your words) from your original post.

The hell? I've written a lot of generally useful code over the years. I release it all into the public domain, or under a fully permissive license like the MIT license. People who want, can (and have, on multiple occasions) take the public domain work I've done and incorporate it into their GPLed software. They're free to! I've got a line at the top of every source file, telling them they can. Can I take the GPLed work they've done and incorporate it into my public domain software? No! There's a ten page license agreement telling me I can't! Who's the cheap-ass mudda-focka neighbor?

[Edited by - Sneftel on November 10, 2009 7:05:53 PM]

Quote: Original post by Sander

Quote: I didn't start being annoyed by it until the GNUtards started going around saying that their sole intention is to completely destroy commercial software.

FSF doesn't say that. Nor RMS for that matter.

Actually, this is exactly what Mr. Raving Lunatic™ is saying.

Some excerpts:

Quote:
Proprietary software is a social problem, and our aim is to put an end to it.

Quote:
Richard Stallman: My goal is a world in which proprietary software is a thing of the past and computer users control the software they use. Maybe we will achieve that in my lifetime.

Quote: Original post by Yann L
Actually, this is exactly what Mr. Raving Lunatic™ is saying.

Some excerpts:

Quote:
Proprietary software is a social problem, and our aim is to put an end to it.

Quote:
Richard Stallman: My goal is a world in which proprietary software is a thing of the past and computer users control the software they use. Maybe we will achieve that in my lifetime.

It never ceases to amaze me the kinds of things that guy says. I loved this question, though:

Quote: As far as I know these two laws [software patents and DMCA] are present only in the USA, except software patents that are valid in Japan too. So I am wondering if you have ever considered to leave your country...

Stallman is like the antithesis of Rupert Murdoch. I reckon if you put those two guys into the same room, the universe would explode...

Quote: Original post by Codeka
Stallman is like the antithesis of Rupert Murdoch. I reckon if you put those two guys into the same room, the universe would explode...

Hell yeah. Put them both on a deserted island somewhere in the Pacific and observe. Although that would be an unfair advantage for RMS, being already pre-equipped with the required smelly survival hippie look...

Quote: /have no problem with BSD/MIT/Apache/etc
//only GPL

Quote: And in one fell swoop you have demonstrated what a hypocrite you are. You're not against free software as long as you can grab it and incorporate it into your own closed source projects. You're exactly the "cheap-ass mudda-focka neighbor" freeloader (your words) from your original post.

That wasn't his original post, that was my original post.

Just for the record.

Wazzatman != Mithrandir

I am saying that all programmers should be paid for their work, and they should all have secure, comfortable lives, which is what all workers deserve. At the same time, I don't want knowledge, which is rapidly enhancing the lives of everyone, trapped inside a secret vault where noone can get to it. And I don't think it's right that when a programmer buys a piece of software, with no intention of redistributing it, that he should not be able to adapt it to his situation.

I don't see how these two goals are opposed to each other.

[Edited by - WazzatMan on November 11, 2009 9:45:53 AM]

Quote: Original post by Sneftel
The hell?

I've edited my post. I confused Mith with the OP of this thread.

As for GPL versus MIT/BSD/etc, it all comes down to what freedom applies to. With MIT/BSD it's freedom for the developer. He's free to do as he wishes, like incorporating it into a closed source product. With GPL it's freedom for the code itself. The copyleft clause ensures the code will always be freely available for the user of the program.

You can't have it both ways. Something has gotta give. In BSD land freedom for the developer trumps freedom of the code. In GPL land freedom of the code trumps freedom of the developer.

Quote: Original post by Sander
With GPL it's freedom for the code itself. The copyleft clause ensures the code will always be freely available for the user of the program.

See, I never bought the idea of "freedom for the code". Objects without intentionality cannot have "freedom"; the concept doesn't make any sense. I totally get that placing such-and-such restrictions on the use of the code, and mandating that those restrictions be propagated has the practical result of more, better code being available to J. Random Hacker. I understand why someone would want to do that -- would feel a moral justification, maybe even a moral imperative, to do that. But calling that freedom for the code is rhetorical jiggery-pokery, a concept stretched to the breaking point to make communal ideals more palatable to libertarian sensibilities.

Quote: Objects without intentionality cannot have "freedom"

Then rephrase it. With BSD the freedom of the recipient of the code trumps the freedom of other recipients further downstream. With GPL the freedom of all further downstream recipients trumps the freedom of the initial recipient.

Same thing.

My point is that there is no objective *better* model. It's a matter of taste and opinion. Who or what matters more to you? A or B? It's entirely subjective. And like all religious wars (OGL vs DirectX, vim vs Emacs, red versus blue) you can discuss it until the cows come home without any results.

Consider SQLite. The project isn't even licensed at all. It's completely in the public domain. Its development hasn't stagnated, and it hasn't been widely ripped off and sold commercially by some scheming white-labeler. And it's probably deployed in hundreds of millions (if not billions) of places.

I don't think the GPL is necessary to protect developers further downstream.

My main problem with the GPL is not so much its inherent idea, but the fact that it comes with an attached political manifesto. I absolutely despise the way its creator and its supporters try to use it to 'educate' people with that sickening holier-than-thou attitude about how their way is the only way, how everything else is bad and destroy-worthy, and how everybody should embrace their idea of "freedom". That is fundamentalism and it is incompatible with a free society.

A license is a legal tool to protect my IP in some way. Nothing more, nothing less. Opinions about what can be considered appropriate protection might diverge, but I don't think that political propaganda or pseudo-cultish agendas have any business in this.