 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
>> nemesis wrote:
>>> but they used to accept patches only if authors were willing to
>>> give them the copyright, so as to "fight" any legal threats. How evil
>>> is that, huh? ;)
>> Pretty evil, if you later want to release it under a different license.
>
> Indeed. But then you realize your contribution is just a grain of sand among
> many others
Firstly, you understand that by giving the FSF the copyright, you've given
them permission to prevent you from releasing your own code with a different
license, right?
Copyright is the right to restrict others from copying your work. It's not
the right to copy it, but to prevent others from doing so.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:49827570$1@news.povray.org...
> MIT licensed code is always free to do whatever you want with it. Whether
> that's a good thing or a bad thing is a different question. You're arguing
> that the GPL is "more free" than the MIT license, and this is just
factually
> incorrect.
That is a matter of opinion, and how you define "free".
Is a democracy that cannot be voted out more or less democratic than a
democracy that can be voted out?
Frankly, I'm undecided on both counts, as there are arguments to be made for
either side.
GPL does bring more restrictions for usage, but ensures that code always
stays free. MIT license is less restrictive, but it also means it does not
ensure continuity of free future code as much as GPL does. It's a tradeoff.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New escreveu:
> nemesis wrote:
>> I see it like as in: "so free that won't let otherwise"
>
> You're about 25 years too late with this. "We restrict you so you can
> be free!"
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote in message
news:web.4981eb2913a704f8bdc576310@news.povray.org...
> "somebody" <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> > > The GPL
> > > prevents you from linking code with a different license to GPLed code.
> > That *is* against the stipulation of the license. So it's not preventing
> > anybody who agrees to the terms of the license. If you wish to use GPL
code
> > with non-GPL code, you are *not* agreeing to the terms of the GPL
license,
> > so of course it's not going to apply to you.
> I'm sure quite a lot of people contributing to open source software
projects
> aren't even aware of this.
>
> Others that may have contributed years ago may find that it's not exactly
what
> they wanted to happen with their code when they released it, so their
copyright
> is not worth a piece of dingo's scat to enforce their interests in that
matter.
I'm quite sure there are a lot of people who make all sorts of mistakes due
to ignorance, laziness, stupidity. Bottomline is, you cannot force people to
RTFM or to RTFP. If they do not, it's their own problem.
> I have no problem with the fact that licenses may at times be misused
contrary
> to the original intentions. I wouldn't even have much of a problem if the
FSF
> continued this practice of assimilating software for their own cause. But
I'd
> appreciate it if the FSF (and supporters) would be aware and honest about
this,
> instead of claiming to better the world. Let alone being the best
> world-betterers around.
I think OS is for the most part a stupid idea (I will start giving away code
when my baker starts giving away bread), but I don't see how it's FSF's
fault if people don't care to know what they are signing their name under.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New escreveu:
> nemesis wrote:
>> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>> nemesis wrote:
>>>> but they used to accept patches only if authors were willing to
>>>> give them the copyright, so as to "fight" any legal threats. How evil
>>>> is that, huh? ;)
>>> Pretty evil, if you later want to release it under a different license.
>>
>> Indeed. But then you realize your contribution is just a grain of
>> sand among
>> many others
>
> Firstly, you understand that by giving the FSF the copyright, you've
> given them permission to prevent you from releasing your own code with a
> different license, right?
Yes, and I'm pretty sure all GPL contributors willing to do so,
including commercial entities, are well aware of it.
> Copyright is the right to restrict others from copying your work. It's
> not the right to copy it, but to prevent others from doing so.
Copyright gets a twist in the GPL, the so-called copyleft: the
copyright holder explicitely *grants* others the rights to use, copy and
modify it, as long as it's always under the GPL. The copyright holder
of the original GPL'd code is still the same, but what does this mean
when he explicitely grants others the right to use, copy and modify it?
The only power left to FSF is if they suddenly change from a foundation
to a corporation and license the body of GNU software under a
restrictive commercial license (though the original codebase still GPL)
and become the next Microsoft from then on. Pissing and laughing on all
contributors who've given away copyrights thus far. Perhaps they launch
this malign plan once the HURD kernel is ready after its 30 years of
development so far? It'll be the perfect system to run Duke Nukem
Forever...
Note also that, even though the official gcc and other GNU software only
accept patches with the copyrights given to the FSF (I'm not really sure
about this today, but for the sake of argument, let's stick with the
notion), nothing prevents one from forking gcc and maintaining a
personal branch of it with modifications whose copyright does not go to
the FSF. You can even redistribute it, under the GPL for sure, but
you're the copyright holder only for your patches to the codebase.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>> nemesis wrote:
>>> Warp escreveu:
>>>> By not being as free as it advertises to be.
>>> I see it like as in: "so free that won't let otherwise"
<snip>
>> It was truly free.
>
> Nice anecdote. :)
>
> So, any freedoms come with restrictions of one kind or another to it, huh? ;)
That wasn't really my point. I was pointing out that I found your
statement above about freedom to be somewhat silly.
The FSF folks love to play games with the word "free". I was giving
scenarios where "free" would be quite bad, and would also not be free
for others.
> I still prefer country 2. ;)
Until you realize that all other countries will stop doing business
with you.
--
"Apple I" (c) Copyright 1767, Sir Isaac Newton.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> That is a matter of opinion, and how you define "free".
I don't think so. I think there's a very easy metric.
If everything I can do with software A I can also do with software B, but
there are some things I can do with B that I can't do with A, then B is more
free than A.
> GPL does bring more restrictions for usage, but ensures that code always
> stays free. MIT license is less restrictive, but it also means it does not
> ensure continuity of free future code as much as GPL does. It's a tradeoff.
The MIT license ensures that anything licensed under the MIT license is
free. Now, you can take that code, and add *NEW* code that isn't MIT
licensed to it. But that isn't the code that was MIT licensed.
You're conflating "the code that I released" with "the code that you
released that builds on my code." You think that if the latter isn't free,
then the former isn't either.
GPL isn't there to make *my* code free. It's there to make free the code of
people who improve GPLed code. The brainwashing in this case is to make
people think that if I improve your code, then it's still your code to control.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
>> Firstly, you understand that by giving the FSF the copyright, you've
>> given them permission to prevent you from releasing your own code with
>> a different license, right?
>
> Yes, and I'm pretty sure all GPL contributors willing to do so,
> including commercial entities, are well aware of it.
>
>> Copyright is the right to restrict others from copying your work. It's
>> not the right to copy it, but to prevent others from doing so.
>
> [...] The copyright holder
> of the original GPL'd code is still the same,
Not if you've given the copyright to the FSF.
> but what does this mean
> when he explicitely grants others the right to use, copy and modify it?
That he can prevent you from copying it.
> The only power left to FSF is if they suddenly change from a foundation
> to a corporation and license the body of GNU software under a
> restrictive commercial license
Yep. Not that I'm saying they will. I'm just pointing out that the assertion
that the original author can always dual-license the code is incorrect if
you've turned the copyright over to the FSF.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New escreveu:
> The FSF is looking for technological mechanisms
> to force you to GPL the code that you wrote entirely from scratch
> yourself without modifying or incorporating any other GPL code. They're
> not respecting my wishes about how I want to distribute *my* original
> code
Your gcc plugin code would only exist in the first place as an extension
for gcc, so without gcc, there would be no plugin of yours. So, why
would you even write a plugin for gcc in the first place?
If the GPL alone would be able to restrict it in this way, you wouldn't
enjoy it either, so what motivations would you have to submit any code
at all to help promote and spread a project purpoting the evil GPL license?
Non sequitur...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New escreveu:
> If everything I can do with software A I can also do with software B,
> but there are some things I can do with B that I can't do with A, then B
> is more free than A.
You're right. MIT is more free than GPL is.
> GPL isn't there to make *my* code free. It's there to make free the code
> of people who improve GPLed code.
Very true.
> The brainwashing in this case is to
> make people think that if I improve your code, then it's still your code
> to control.
I don't think I get it what you mean.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
