GPL is a way of stealing everyone's work without paying.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-28 9:33
PROOF GETS ME FIRED THAT IS WHY I ASKED
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-28 9:55 (sage)
They should fire you just 'cos you use CAPS.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-28 12:43
>>10
BSD is what I understand for "free". GPL is not free. According to Richard Stallman, the only way to be free is to use Richard Stallman's license. This doesn't seem too free, now does it?
By "free" I understand "do whatever you want, lol". This implies anything from commercial use to fap material, from 4AM nerdery to military use, because it's free.
>>18
If I can't horde the code for myself, then god dammit; it isn't truly free!
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-29 2:56
>>16
I want to use it in a non-GPL open source product, therefore I'm involved, yet I can't use it.
The GPL guarantees freedom for every Richard Stallman involved.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-29 4:33
>>15
Actually BSD is recognised by the FSF as a Free license. The difference is that BSD provides you with one additional freedom: the freedom to restrict the freedom of your users.
People who license their code under the GPL do so because they don't want to give away their code for nothing. They want to get something back; not money, rather a simple trade. You can use my code on the condition that you offer your modifications under the same terms. BSD people are quite happy to let their work be taken and used without getting anything back in return. That's fine if it doesn't bother them.
And that's the last I'm going to say on the issue, this subject has been gone over so many times its not even funny. I want to know what the OP is going to do about it though.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-29 4:41
>>21
BSD people are truly altruistic. GPLers are a bunch of viral blokes.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-29 5:36 (sage)
| The difference is that BSD provides you with one additional freedom: the freedom to restrict the freedom of your users.
The BSD license makes no such restriction. Your users are free to do whatever they want with what they've received. The GPL imposes additional restraints onto your users. That's restricting your freedom.
Freedom is the absence of restraints.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-29 5:51
>>20
There is nothing preventing you from using it but your evil capitalist managers that don't want you to release the code.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-29 6:26
>>23
Exactly. To me, free software means "do whatever you want, lol". Credits are acceptable, but noting else. I consider BSD, MPL and of course public domain to be free; GPL is not so free. It's freeware, it's open sauce, but it's not fully free.
>>24
Yeah, the communist party went that way (see where that fat bearded geek is? Oops isn't him RMS?)
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-29 9:37
Wow maybe you people should read the GPL license instead of just spouting +2 comments from slashdot.
Also YHBT
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-29 16:05
Fucking kids; too young to remember how the vendors raped X before GNU and Linux came along. MIT is the kinda freedom we can do without.
Open source: "Please take my work and earn obscene money from it."
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-30 1:28
>>31
GNU: "You can take my work and make money from it (eg Novell), and I'll make money from it too! (Redhat)"
BSD: "You can take my work, extend it in weird and bizarre ways that lock me and my users out --and make money off of it and off of driving me out of the market (eg MS/Kerebos)!
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-30 2:43
>>31
Open source = See my sauce
Freeware = You no pay
Free software = Do *anything* you please. Fap to it, sell it, I don't care because I'm truly giving it away for free.
>>32
GNU: This code belongs to the System, comrades.
BSD: Here, you're free to do anything you please, lol.