clipka wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> clipka wrote:
>>> The bad companies will assimilate your free software project until, with their
>>> market power, they have "dried out" your project,
>> Name two.
> 
> Just citing the FSF's view of things.

I.e., "I'm spreading rumors and FUD without actually knowing what I'm 
talking about."  Cool. Just checking.

-- 
   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

Warp escreveu:
>   I like how GPL fanboys resort to argue about semantics when their "you
> can use it in any way you want" is proven wrong. Suddenly the term "use"
> is limited to certain uses, not all of them. Thus, of course, this is a
> self-contained truth: "GPL code can be used for anything you want, when
> we define 'use' appropriately."

Using the software is not the same as using the source of the software. 
  That's really where your "semantic" gets skewed.

You can't use the source unmodified as the basis for your software 
without making the larger work a derivative and you can't modify the 
source without release the changes under the GPL as well.  That's the 
only 2 restrictions of the GPL and they don't cover *usage* of the 
software, which *is* unrestricted for any purposes.

There's no fanboyism, just logic.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Warp escreveu:
> >   I like how GPL fanboys resort to argue about semantics when their "you
> > can use it in any way you want" is proven wrong. Suddenly the term "use"
> > is limited to certain uses, not all of them. Thus, of course, this is a
> > self-contained truth: "GPL code can be used for anything you want, when
> > we define 'use' appropriately."

> Using the software is not the same as using the source of the software. 
>   That's really where your "semantic" gets skewed.

  Right. When we define the word "use" properly, anything fits.

  So how exactly is GPL different from any other license?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> You can't use the source unmodified as the basis for your software 
> without making the larger work a derivative

Can you use the object code unmodified as the basis for your software?

-- 
   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" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> I see your point.  But I'd like to point out that your scenario of a GPL-only
> environment is as ludicrous as a closed-source-only or BSD-only.

That's exactly my point: When the FSF's overaggressive approach is criticized,
their followers bring up highly dogmatic arguments that, if applied to the very
commercial organizations against which the FSF claims to defend, would undermine
the FSF's whole cause.

Which is to say: Regardless of whether the basic idea behind the FSF is a good
one - their dogmatic and aggressive approach is hypocritic.

Post a reply to this message

"nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> It's a matter of perspective, of course.  They could very well allow for non-GPL
> closed-source software to be plugins for gcc, but chose not to.  It's their
> software and their terms.

ROFL!!

That's a *really* good one...

It's not *THEIR* software - it's the software of many, many, many contributors.
That's the nature of open source projects after all. The majority of them
(maybe not in lines of codes contributed, but in number of noses) may not even
be aware at all about such discussions.

So say again, who chose this interpretation of "derivative work"?

The software authors? I doubt.

The "politically" most active part of the contributors? I bet.


> The GPL doesn't require it and the GPL seems to be
> living still in the older world of static linkage, but is slowly adapting to
> new forms of composing software...

Yeah, it has already adapted - by treating it the same as static linkage,
instead of considering that the whole "derivative work" dogma needs an
overhaul.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> It's commercial, but instead of you giving them money, they want you to give
> them your code. We solved the barter problem several thousand years ago with
> the invention of currency.

Well put.

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> It's commercial, but instead of you giving them money, they want you to give
>> them your code. We solved the barter problem several thousand years ago with
>> the invention of currency.
> 
> Well put.

Well, to give credit where credit is due:
http://3laws.wordpress.com/2008/11/26/summer-of-freetards/

Kind of like the Maddox of computer consulting. :-)

-- 
   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:4981df97$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:

> > That *is* against the stipulation of the license. So it's not preventing
> > anybody who agrees to the terms of the license.

> Well, yeah. "Everyone is free."  "What about the slaves?"  "Well, the
> constitution says they're not people, so they're free too. Free to be
slaves."

For this argument, I don't care whether you believe slaves are people or
not, so long as you are consistent with your definition. What you are doing,
however, is obfuscating the matter by claiming GPL license limits rights of
MIT licensees, when in fact, the same software cannot be both GPL licensed
and a MIT licensed, just as one cannot be both a person and a non-person
simultaneously. GPL license perfectly protects the rights of authors who
chose it, within the terms of the license. As does MIT license. Take your
pick. You cannot, however, eat your cake and have it too.

Post a reply to this message

"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.

Face it: There is a group of people that has assimilated code, using it now for
a purpose that goes against the original intentions of at least some of the
authors.

This is exactly what the FSF is claiming to be fighting against. Yet we see this
in their own ranks.

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.

Post a reply to this message