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"
>
>  There was once a country that had unlimited freedom of speech. They
> banned anyone from ever uttering any notions that suggested that some
> speech should be limited.
>
>  Speech was "so free that they wouldn't let otherwise"
>
>  There was another country where you could use your earnings to buy
> anything you could afford. You were free to do whatever you wanted with
> your money, as long as you didn't give give that money to anyone from
> another country, nor spend the money outside your country. If someone
> from outside gave you money, you were allowed to keep it.
>
>  You could do whatever you wanted with the money, as long as you didn't
> do whatever you weren't allowed to. It was so free.
>
>  A cell phone company provided the ultimate freedom: You could use their
> service to call whoever you wanted at *no* cost whatsoever, as long you
> only called other Sprint lines. You could, of course, receive calls from
> Sprint phones, but those who called you would then be forced to the
> Sprint plan. Additionally, once you got a Sprint phone, the law forbade
> you from ever switching to any other company.
>
>  It was truly free.

Nice anecdote. :)

So, any freedoms come with restrictions of one kind or another to it, huh? ;)

I still prefer country 2. ;)

Post a reply to this message

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!"

-- 
   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:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> nemesis wrote:
>>> What is more free?  Something that takes measures to always be free or
>>> something that is so free that even allows something to not be free
>>> anymore?
>> Something released under the MIT license is always free.
> 
> gcc evolution is guaranteed by requiring that all modifications and bug fixes
> are too released under the same GPL, thus, free.

That's incorrect, as you've repeatedly pointed out.

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. It has more restrictions than software licensed with the MIT 
license and software released as GPL can be used for fewer purposes.

When I argue that the MIT license is more free and has fewer restrictions, 
it's not a counter-argument to point out that GPL leads to better code. Any 
more than arguing slavery is less free than sufferage is countered by the 
fact that cotton costs less if you have slaves to pick it.

-- 
   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:
> 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?

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