 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tag povrayorg> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka escreveu:
> "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.
Yes, I'd like to say my software, but thought the pronoum their would
fit best to the situation, ambiguous as it is.
> So say again, who chose this interpretation of "derivative work"?
>
> The software authors? I doubt.
They chose it when accepted contributing to a software project born out
of the FSF efforts. BTW, I believe the FSF is the copyright owner of
all gcc and other GNU code. I don't know if their old policy still
applies, 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? ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > So say again, who chose this interpretation of "derivative work"?
> >
> > The software authors? I doubt.
>
> They chose it when accepted contributing to a software project born out
> of the FSF efforts.
I'm not sure about the history of the GCC code; however, what you say would mean
that no single line of source code existed to start with before the GCC project
was launched as a GPL project, and no single line of source code was taken from
other, truly free software.
I seriously doubt that this is the case.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New escreveu:
> What prevents the code from being both MIT licensed and GPL licensed?
> The MIT license, or the GPL license?
The author of the code. He is the copyright holder and can license
under MIT, GPL, both or none. If he licenses under MIT, someone later
can take it verbatim and release under GPL as well. If he releases
under the GPL, no one *but him* can later also release it under MIT
license or any other.
> Having answered that, can you see where someone would say the GPL is
> more restrictive than the MIT license?
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?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka escreveu:
> nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>> So say again, who chose this interpretation of "derivative work"?
>>>
>>> The software authors? I doubt.
>> They chose it when accepted contributing to a software project born out
>> of the FSF efforts.
>
> I'm not sure about the history of the GCC code; however, what you say would mean
> that no single line of source code existed to start with before the GCC project
> was launched as a GPL project, and no single line of source code was taken from
> other, truly free software.
>
> I seriously doubt that this is the case.
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/History
Simply googling for "history of gcc" suffices. After failing to grab a
proper free compiler, Stallman wrote one from scratch, though adapting a
C front end from one of the previous compilers.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Of course, you can always communicate with it via IPC. When it's a
> single process, it's a single process.
Somehow, I don't remember the license talking about a "process".
--
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:
> 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.
--
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:
> 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.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Mueen Nawaz
Subject: Re: This GPL stuff is getting ridiculous
Date: 29 Jan 2009 19:54:07
Message: <49824faf@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
--
"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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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. I suspect there's no gcc BSD
equivalent because good code in it would likely be a basis for much better
commercial equivalents, who wouldn't be required by the license to give away
modified code.
GPL'd software seems to evolve much faster than BSD software. You may tell it's
because of GPL's damned "viral" behaviour, but it's exactly what guarantees the
continual perfecting of GPL'd code, since it can't be made non-free and
powering leeches.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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 and you wouldn't be able to do it even if each copyright holder
remained with their respective copyrights without their consent -- specially if
you're planning for a commercial license. And then, you also realize it's your
choice to try to improve this free software project where everyone benefits or
apply your patch to some non-existent, non-GPL equivalent. Or simply dig
Visual Studio.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
