clipka escreveu:
> All your codebase are belong to us.

Only codebases based on GPLed software.  You have the ultimate freedom 
of not using it as well.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Warp escreveu:
> >   This makes GPL incompatible with all other licenses. This is rather
> > restricting.

> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses

> Apache and Boost are among them.

  Their definition of "compatible" is that you can re-license the other
code to be under the GPL. In other words, you can use non-GPL code in a
GPL program, and publish the entire program under the GPL, effectively
changing the license of the original non-GPL code to GPL.

  What you can't do is take GPL code and use it in a project which uses
a non-GPL license.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

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"

>   It's in fact so restrictive that it becomes useless in many cases.

If it's so restrictive and so useless, why are you even getting into an 
argument about it rather than getting over the stupid damned thing? 
Surely there's value there that fuels the many flames like this.

Fact is people want to use it in their closed projects and not give away 
anything, that's why they complain so much about GPL software rather 
than pull themselves together and use MIT/BSD software.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New escreveu:
> If I include libjpg without modifying it at all, I can no longer use the 
> MIT license on my code, even if my code is orders of magnitude larger 
> and more valuable. This forces me, while building something large that I 
> need to get paid for, to rewrite code that's already tested and works 
> well and is bug-free and safe.

Oh, come on!  If you stopped whinning about sucky and evil GPL software 
and pulled yourself together to write down replacement code for said 
libs, you'd have by now a pretty large collection of good non-GPL 
software under your belt.  After all, they are pretty trivial and simple 
against your magnum opus.

> Hence, GPL code leads to bugs in non-GPL 
> code.

You're complaining that it's Microsoft's fault that device drivers are 
buggy and crash Windows.

Post a reply to this message

Warp escreveu:
>   There are other licenses which protect the rights of the original author
> equally well but are not so restrictive about which other licenses they
> may be combined with.

And what are you waiting to use them?

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> If I include libjpg without modifying it at all, I can no longer use the MIT 
> license on my code, even if my code is orders of magnitude larger and more 
> valuable. This forces me, while building something large that I need to get 
> paid for, to rewrite code that's already tested and works well and is 
> bug-free and safe. Hence, GPL code leads to bugs in non-GPL code.

  Btw, libjpeg is not GPL.

  (And another btw: I have no idea what you are talking about above.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> >   It's in fact so restrictive that it becomes useless in many cases.

> If it's so restrictive and so useless, why are you even getting into an 
> argument about it rather than getting over the stupid damned thing? 

  Uh? I don't understand.

  If I think that it's restrictive and useless, I should not express that
opinion? I really can't see the logical causality here.

> Surely there's value there that fuels the many flames like this.

  I fail to see any causality here either. The only reason why I argue
so vocally against the GPL must be that the GPL is valuable? How does
that make any sense?

  Could the reason why I argue against the GPL is that fanboys advocating
it as something it's not ("you can use it in *any way* you want") are
irritating? No, that cannot be the reason. The reason must be that I think
GPL is valuable, which is why I oppose it so much. Yeah, that makes so much
sense.

> Fact is people want to use it in their closed projects and not give away 
> anything, that's why they complain so much about GPL software rather 
> than pull themselves together and use MIT/BSD software.

  Yes. Everybody is trying to rip off GPL code for their selfish desires,
which is why the only reason why people oppose the GPL.

  This, of course, includes people who would want to use some other
open source licenses which are even less restrictive than the GPL.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Warp escreveu:
> >   There are other licenses which protect the rights of the original author
> > equally well but are not so restrictive about which other licenses they
> > may be combined with.

> And what are you waiting to use them?

  Uh? Exactly what are you arguing here? I don't really get it.

  It almost sounds like you were saying that I *am* using the GPL even
though I oppose it so much. Or something. I don't really understand what
is it that you are saying.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> If I include libjpg without modifying it at all, I can no longer use the MIT
> license on my code, even if my code is orders of magnitude larger and more
> valuable. This forces me, while building something large that I need to get
> paid for, to rewrite code that's already tested and works well and is
> bug-free and safe. Hence, GPL code leads to bugs in non-GPL code.

Ooooh - you're one of the bad guys who try to steal free software, like libjpg!
Don't you know that this piece of free software is only free as in "freedom of
speach", and not as in "free for the taking"? Noooo, you gotta pay a price for
that free library you intend to use!

How much?

Ooooh, nothing of particular value... just give us all rights to your complete
application, including all other libraries it might be using - including the
right to use it to acquire other software the same way as well - that'll be
enough to settle the bill...

You know, after all, we're fighting for a good cause, against those evil
companies that want to steal your software from you...

..... and of course, don't trust the MIT followers, because, you know, they're
not
your friends, they can't protect you and all... *we're* your friends,
remember...


Heck, I wish someone would come up with a free software license expressively
*forbidding* derivative works' license conditions to require any published
derivatives of the derivative to be released completely as open source.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Oh, come on!  If you stopped whinning about sucky and evil GPL software
> and pulled yourself together to write down replacement code for said
> libs, you'd have by now a pretty large collection of good non-GPL
> software under your belt.  After all, they are pretty trivial and simple
> against your magnum opus.

Isn't that just the same point the FSF is claiming about commercial software,
just with a different "sign bit"?

The bad companies will assimilate your free software project until, with their
market power, they have "dried out" your project, so it only lives on as part
of their closed, commercial code - and other similar free projects likewise, so
the only alternatives left out there will be commercial products.

What's the difference here to a bad FSF that will assimilate *my* free software
project until, with *their* social power, they have "dried out" *my* project,
so it only lives on under *their* GPL'ed, not-for-commercial license - and
other similar free projects likewise, so the only alternatives left out there
will be GPL'ed products...?

Except that "FSF is ungood" would be a contradiction in itself, of couse...


I see people kind of measuring the one by the inches and the other by the
centimeters here, while basically it's the same: Influential organizations
trying to force their will on as much software as possible.

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> The bad companies will assimilate your free software project until, with their
> market power, they have "dried out" your project,

Name two.

-- 
   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:4980c287$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> > "Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
> > news:4980a265$1@news.povray.org...
> >> Jim Henderson wrote:

> >>>>   This makes GPL incompatible with all other licenses. This is rather
> >>>> restricting.

> >>> But protective of the rights of the original author, which is the
> >>> underlying goal.

> >> Which original author? The one giving away the code with more
> > restrictions,
> >> or the one giving away the code with fewer restrictions?

> > Rights of the author who released his code under GPL of course. Only in
the
> > bizzaro world might it make sense to assume GPL would offer protection
to
> > authors who don't (!?) use it.

> So you're agreeing. The GPL protects the freedoms of the author using the
> GPL

So far, I do agree.

> at the expense of the freedoms of the author using the MIT license.

This part is absolute nonsense. It's the MIT license that protects the right
of the author that is using the MIT license. Just like it's GPL license
that's protecting the rights of the author using the GPL license.

GPL neither protects, nor restricts the rights of anyone using any other
license. It's absurd to claim something like that, so I don't understand "at
the expense" part.

> And  the MIT license restricts users less in what they can do with the
code.

Maybe so, but that's irrelevant. The author can pick any license that he
wants. If the author wishes least restrictions upon the users, he won't pick
MIT either but release his code to public domain.

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4980c417$1@news.povray.org...

> If I include libjpg without modifying it at all, I can no longer use the
MIT
> license on my code,

So what? It's not your god given right to be able to use MIT license.

It's your option, however, to not use libjpg, if you don't agree to the
license.

> even if my code is orders of magnitude larger and more
> valuable.

That's neither here nor there. People don't have a right to code that's less
valuable than theirs.

> This forces me, while building something large that I need to get
> paid for, to rewrite code that's already tested and works well and is
> bug-free and safe. Hence, GPL code leads to bugs in non-GPL code.

That's some convoluted thinking. Libjpg is an option. You can take it or
leave it. Its existance doesn't force anything on you.

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>   Could the reason why I argue against the GPL is that fanboys advocating
> it as something it's not ("you can use it in *any way* you want") are
> irritating?

You *can use* GPLed software in any way you want, including packaging together
with your closed software.  The GPL clauses only take effect in the case of
modification *and* release of modified GPLed software, not use.  Usage of GPLed
software is irrestrict to anyone to do as they see fit, including sell it
without further notice to the original developers.

What's irritating in this fact?

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> GPL neither protects, nor restricts the rights of anyone using any other
> license.

It does so by preventing you from using a different license. The GPL 
prevents you from linking code with a different license to GPLed code. The 
MIT license doesn't.

If you can't see that, then I'm not sure what the problem is.

> Maybe so, but that's irrelevant. The author can pick any license that he
> wants. 

Unless he's authoring a plug-in for GCC.

-- 
   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:
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>>   Could the reason why I argue against the GPL is that fanboys advocating
>> it as something it's not ("you can use it in *any way* you want") are
>> irritating?
> 
> You *can use* GPLed software in any way you want, including packaging together
> with your closed software.  The GPL clauses only take effect in the case of
> modification *and* release of modified GPLed software, not use.

That's exactly what the /. article was talking about, tho. The intention is 
apparently to make it impossible to write a closed-source piece of software 
that interoperates with GCC without modifying GCC.  I.e., they're trying to 
prevent the author of plug-ins from distributing closed-source plug-ins that 
work with an unmodified gcc, in order to force the GPL onto those plug-ins.

See the subject line? Remember where we started?

-- 
   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

"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > If I include libjpg without modifying it at all, I can no longer use the MIT
> > license on my code, even if my code is orders of magnitude larger and more
> > valuable. This forces me, while building something large that I need to get
> > paid for, to rewrite code that's already tested and works well and is
> > bug-free and safe. Hence, GPL code leads to bugs in non-GPL code.
>
> Ooooh - you're one of the bad guys who try to steal free software, like libjpg!
> Don't you know that this piece of free software is only free as in "freedom of
> speach", and not as in "free for the taking"? Noooo, you gotta pay a price for
> that free library you intend to use!
>
> How much?
>
> Ooooh, nothing of particular value... just give us all rights to your complete
> application, including all other libraries it might be using - including the
> right to use it to acquire other software the same way as well - that'll be
> enough to settle the bill...

You're wrong.  GPL is a copyright-based license -- it absolutely depends on
copyright law to enforce its terms.  And you are the copyright owner to your
software.  You may dual license as well and this was the business model of
MySQL, at least until being acquired by Sun.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> "Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
> news:4980c417$1@news.povray.org...
> 
>> If I include libjpg without modifying it at all, I can no longer use the
> MIT
>> license on my code,
> 
> So what? 

So you said "The GPL only affects those who modify the code." This is 
factually wrong, as evidenced by my example.

So that's the freedom that the GPL takes away from the user of the MIT 
license.  Since you asked.

And if I wanted to take some code licensed with the GPL and some code 
licensed with something more restrictive and combine the two, I couldn't.



> It's not your god given right to be able to use MIT license.

I'm not sure where I said it was.

I said the GPL restricts one person's freedom in return for another's, while 
some other licenses don't. You act like this isn't true, so I'm trying to 
explain it. Now that I realize that you understand this is true and just 
don't want to phrase it that way because then it wouldn't sound "free!" then 
I'll stop discussing it.

> That's some convoluted thinking. Libjpg is an option. You can take it or
> leave it. Its existance doesn't force anything on you.

But the license does.

-- 
   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

"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > Oh, come on!  If you stopped whinning about sucky and evil GPL software
> > and pulled yourself together to write down replacement code for said
> > libs, you'd have by now a pretty large collection of good non-GPL
> > software under your belt.  After all, they are pretty trivial and simple
> > against your magnum opus.
>
> Isn't that just the same point the FSF is claiming about commercial software,
> just with a different "sign bit"?
>
> The bad companies will assimilate your free software project until, with their
> market power, they have "dried out" your project, so it only lives on as part
> of their closed, commercial code - and other similar free projects likewise, so
> the only alternatives left out there will be commercial products.
>
> What's the difference here to a bad FSF that will assimilate *my* free software
> project until, with *their* social power, they have "dried out" *my* project,
> so it only lives on under *their* GPL'ed, not-for-commercial license - and
> other similar free projects likewise, so the only alternatives left out there
> will be GPL'ed products...?
>
> I see people kind of measuring the one by the inches and the other by the
> centimeters here, while basically it's the same: Influential organizations
> trying to force their will on as much software as possible.

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.  Closed
software will not die, despite highly successful free software projects and any
FSF advances.  There are projects which simply make no sense as shared
open-source projects.

That said, if you don't like GPL and its restrictions, it's just a matter of
choosing another source of well-maintained, bug-free software under a more
leech-friendly license.  Or create one your own!  I'm sure there are plenty of
anti-FSF developers out there ready to help you in your endeauvour.  and
benefit from it too... ;)

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> So you said "The GPL only affects those who modify the code." This is
> factually wrong, as evidenced by my example.

Now I see your point.  However, a modification is considered here not simply the
act of taking the original code and messing with it.  A work derived from an
unmodified source is also a modification, "using" it to integrate its features
as base for a larger work.  That, I guess, is the crux of the matter with gcc
plugins.

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.  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...

Of course, anyone courageous enough to fork gcc should stand right.  But I guess
most of these anti-FSF folks are more busy paying Microsoft for Visual Studio
and relegate gcc to geeky hobby.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> That, I guess, is the crux of the matter with gcc plugins.

No it's not. Why would that be the crux with gcc plug-ins and not with 
applications that run on top of Linux?  Couldn't Linux just as easily use 
the same sorts of techniques they're talking about for applications?

Sure. Because there's lots of places using GCC outside of Linux, and few 
people who will be writing plug-ins for it. But there are few places using 
Linux, and they want lots of people writing closed applications for it.

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.

> 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.  

Certainly. They're specifically trying to come up with a mechanism *not* 
based on copyright to restrict the authoring of code that implements gcc 
plug-ins, because the GPL cannot be made to apply, since plug-ins don't 
necessarily incorporate any copyrighted code.

> Of course, anyone courageous enough to fork gcc should stand right.  But I guess
> most of these anti-FSF folks are more busy paying Microsoft for Visual Studio
> and relegate gcc to geeky hobby.

Just so you know, such statements make you sound like you're saying "I have 
no actual argument, so I'll start with the ad homeniem attacks and hope you 
hate microsoft as much as I do so you agree unthinkingly."

-- 
   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

On 1/28/2009 2:39 AM, nemesis wrote:
> Chambers<ben### [at] pacificwebguycom>  wrote:
>> The FSF is quite draconian in their policies.  In fact, the latest
>> efforts seem to be just as DRM infected as any closed system.
>
> Except freedoms are preserved rather than taken away.  You're still free to use
> it in *any way* you want.  And if you want to modify it for yourself or your
> organization.  You just have to comply to the GPL way if you later want to ship
> that modified work, in which case the GPL is enforced so that you don't deny
> others the same rights the GPL offered you.  Fair enough.

But it seriously limits the use for open source software in commercial 
products.  In that sense, instead of having an egalitarian, "best 
software wins" model, you have two[1] choices:

1) Use *all* closed-source software, and pay for everything,
2) Use *all* GPL software, and accept that most is crap.

Why can't we have open- and closed- source programs sitting side by side?

The FSF tweaked me when they stopped supporting the LGPL (even renaming 
it from the "Library GPL" to the "Lesser GPL").  LGPL was the single 
greatest achievement in licensing I've ever encountered[2] (it allowed 
open source libraries to be used by competitive companies), but the FSF 
doesn't think that's appropriate.  They're an "all or nothing" bunch, 
and have been pushing against the LGPL almost as long as its been around.

[1] Yes, I know I'm simplifying.

[2] The original GPL was really just about protecting rights that 
everybody already knew you had - "You can't do such and such with my 
software!" - while the LGPL was a successful hybrid of two distinct 
mindsets, allowing both open- and closed- source code to be used in the 
same project.

...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Darren New 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.

No, really.  Name some open source projects that closed source software 
companies shut down and are no longer available.  I'm interested in hearing 
it.  I hear this often, but I don't think I've ever seen it happen.

I've seen open source projects suck the life out of commercial ventures, and 
I've seen commercial ventures suck the life out of other commercial 
ventures, but I've never seen an original open source project destroyed by 
competition from a closed-source for-fee program. (Patents and other IP 
laws, maybe, but not competition.)

-- 
   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

Jim Henderson wrote:
> The one who wrote the code that you are modifying and then distributing.
> If I want to reuse his code, I have to respect his wishes (and his rights 
> as the original author) about how it be distributed.

That's the trick, tho. 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, and 
since the GPL cannot be made to apply to gcc plug-ins, they need to find 
some mechanism other than copyright to keep me from being able to distribute 
it.  That's exactly what people think is over the top.

-- 
   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:498115f8$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:

> > GPL neither protects, nor restricts the rights of anyone using any other
> > license.

> It does so by preventing you from using a different license.

No it doesn't. You can pick any license you want, so long as you agree and
abide to the terms of the license in question. That's how *any* licensing
scheme works.

> 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.

> The MIT license doesn't.

MIT license doesn't protect the rights of the authour because it prevents
him from not distributing the license with his software. See how absurd that
sounds?

Yes, MIT license is less restrictive as to what recipients can do, but
that's the reason there are so many licenses. Authors get to pick to which
licensing terms they agree.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> [-- text/plain, encoding 8bit, charset: iso-8859-1, 15 lines --]

> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> >   Could the reason why I argue against the GPL is that fanboys advocating
> > it as something it's not ("you can use it in *any way* you want") are
> > irritating?

> You *can use* GPLed software in any way you want, including packaging together
> with your closed software.  The GPL clauses only take effect in the case of
> modification *and* release of modified GPLed software, not use.

  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."

>  Usage of GPLed
> software is irrestrict to anyone to do as they see fit, including sell it
> without further notice to the original developers.

> What's irritating in this fact?

  I didn't say the fact is irritating.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> But it seriously limits the use for open source software in commercial 
> products.

  GPL doesn't only limit the use of GPL'd software in commercial products,
it limits its use in *all* products which are not GPL, including open source
projects. Thus it's hugely restrictive.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

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.

Post a reply to this message

"nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > Ooooh, nothing of particular value... just give us all rights to your complete
> > application, including all other libraries it might be using - including the
> > right to use it to acquire other software the same way as well - that'll be
> > enough to settle the bill...
>
> You're wrong.  GPL is a copyright-based license -- it absolutely depends on
> copyright law to enforce its terms.  And you are the copyright owner to your
> software.  You may dual license as well and this was the business model of
> MySQL, at least until being acquired by Sun.

Sure, you may continue to use your own authored code...

..... so can a free software developer whose code has been assimilated by one of
those Evil Bad Greedy Companies That Want To Steal Your Code: He's still free
to use his own code any way he likes...

So again, the difference between big companies and the FSF is marginal here as I
see it, being mainly that companies typically don't *believe* to be standing on
higher moral grounds. Aside from that, a great lot of traits the FSF criticizes
about companies can be seen in the FSF just as well, if one dares to take a
closer look instead of just blindly swimming with the mass.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> No it doesn't. You can pick any license you want, so long as you agree and
> abide to the terms of the license in question.

OK. From this, I'm going to assume from this that you didn't actually read 
the article posted in the OP's message. Thanks for playing.

>> 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.

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."

> Yes, MIT license is less restrictive as to what recipients can do,

Yay!  Wow, you do speak English after all!

-- 
   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

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

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>   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."

I'd rather put it as, "GPL code can be used for anything you want, provided that
the GPL doesn't forbid it" ;)

Which is true for just about any license...

Wasn't it Henry Ford who claimed that "you can get the car in any color you want
- as long as it's black"? ;)

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> I'd rather put it as, "GPL code can be used for anything you want, provided that
> the GPL doesn't forbid it" ;)
> 
> Which is true for just about any license...

But since the conversation at this point has become a conversation comparing 
the restrictions in the GPL license to the restrictions in other licenses, 
you're not really adding anything to the conversation except disinformation.

-- 
   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:
> >>> 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, you definitely misunderstood me ;)

I'm not making the FSF's point of view my own - not at all. I just wanted to
sketch what they say about the Big Bad Companies, and counterpose it whith what
can be said about the FSF itself, to show the flaws in their arguments. Salted
with some deal of sarcasm. Sorry to got you confused ;)

(Unless I'm understanding *you* wrong and what you're currently saying is that I
have no idea of what the FSF is really saying.... in that case, I can assure you
I have: That *is* the FSF's view of things, according to my first-hand
perception of the statements on their internet site. So no spreading of rumors
here.)

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> 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,

What prevents the code from being both MIT licensed and GPL licensed? The 
MIT license, or the GPL license?

Having answered that, can you see where someone would say the GPL is more 
restrictive than the MIT license?

> GPL license perfectly protects the rights of authors who chose it, 

And the conversation is originally about foisting the GPL on authors who 
otherwise would chose a different license. So you can't really say "take 
your pick" when FSF is saying "how can we prevent people from taking their 
pick?"

-- 
   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 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.

There's a problem with this logic, lying in the definition of "use".

If I develop an application by modifying an existing one, I'm definitely using
source code. No argument here.

If I develop an application that "uses" a certain library by statically linking
to it - am I *using* the source code here, or am I rather *using* the library
via its well-defined interface?

If I recompile the library and then link it into my binary, the question is
quite clear: I *am* using the source code, because otherwise I couldn't
recompile it. And If I distribute my software in binary format, the question is
rather moot anyway, as I agree that in this case the whole binary can easily be
seen as a single work, of which the library is an inseparable part. After all,
it's one single file.

Now what if I develop an application that "uses" a certain library by
*dynamically* linking to it?

Obviously I'm no longer using the *source code* here - except for the header
files; it can be argued whether these are merely a formal description of the
library API, or part of the library source code, but in the latter case I could
still re-write the header files from scratch according to the API.

So am I not in fact just *using* the software, instead of developing a
derivative work?

What if I don't distribute the library along with my application, and instead
advise the user to get them somewhere else?

What if my application links the library in a way that it will still run if it
isn't present on the target system?

In all these cases, I see GPL still claiming rights on my application by *their*
definition of "derivative work".

However, where's the borderline between this and, say, *using* the API of an
operating system? The command line interface of another application? An
application installed somewhere else in the world-wide web?

It's all a question of borderline, and I think the FSF's interpretation of this
borderline is in itself "borderline", if not already *far* beyond.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> But since the conversation at this point has become a conversation comparing
> the restrictions in the GPL license to the restrictions in other licenses,
> you're not really adding anything to the conversation except disinformation.

Thanks for pointing this out. I guess the world badly needed this post of yours,
huh? :P

Please let the readers decide for themselves whether my posts add anything to
the conversation, right?

Thanks.

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Darren, you definitely misunderstood me ;)

Yes I did. Sorry.

> (Unless I'm understanding *you* wrong and what you're currently saying is that I
> have no idea of what the FSF is really saying.... 

No, I thought you were agreeing with their position. Comes from reading 
posts out of order. :-)

-- 
   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

clipka escreveu:
> It's all a question of borderline, and I think the FSF's interpretation of this
> borderline is in itself "borderline", if not already *far* beyond.

You're right.  The concept of the GPL was well suited for programs that 
had to be statically linked, when you source code was far more needed. 
Today we have many more options for componentization to which the GPL 
has no clear answer, like building "web2.0" mashups out of loose parts 
communicating over http.  Thus, the measures they're taking with gcc 
plugins.  You're either with us or you're not.

Of couse, for those who don't like the GPL and its measures to assure 
sources are always available, forking is an option as is opting for 
another compiler under another license.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New escreveu:
> 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?

Of course, you can always communicate with it via IPC.  When it's a 
single process, it's a single process.

Post a reply to this message

clipka escreveu:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> But since the conversation at this point has become a conversation comparing
>> the restrictions in the GPL license to the restrictions in other licenses,
>> you're not really adding anything to the conversation except disinformation.
> 
> Thanks for pointing this out. I guess the world badly needed this post of yours,
> huh? :P
> 
> Please let the readers decide for themselves whether my posts add anything to
> the conversation, right?
> 
> Thanks.

You guys can not even agree with yourselves, let alone on license 
matters... ;)

Post a reply to this message