Stallman Cranks Dat Soulja Boy!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=7C6r6fG4k40

>>39,40
Have you two considered that you might be fucking retards?

>>39-41
SPAWHBTC

>>41
Have you two considered that you might be too fucking serious?

>>42
NYJMUA

>>38

One of my essential problems with his idea is that (to my understanding) he wants to give popular artists the primary cut while less popular artists get much less of a cut. I understand where he's going with it (good art changes the world, and all that) but this necessarily regulates that all art has to be "good" . Also, what if I don't like a song (let's take soulja boi), yet it's so fucking popular with a majority that I'M PAYING FOR IT. What if it's popular, for say, 13 years. That's 13 YEARS OF MY TAX MONEY DOWN THE FUCKING DRAIN FOR A SONG THAT I CAN CARE LESS ABOUT. More so, who's to say foul play can't take it's hand upon popularity. Popular art isn't always good art.

I could go on about it... But probably the most essential point I should stress is this. Richard Stallman, a man who promotes freedom, is trying to stress a TAX (the very ideal devoid of ALL liberties because you HAVE to pay it) on artistic endeavors. Not a good fucking idea.

>>45
Well, he is a leftist. I suppose it makes sense to him.

>>45
_{FOR A SONG THAT I CAN CARE LESS ABOUT.
I CAN CARE LESS}

Facepalm.hs

>>47
I guess I AM careless. I just got caught up in my rage.

I can care less about this thread.

Americans and their doublespeak antics

>>39
I'm from a country where we don't have this type of music.
I envy you.

>>45
For all his talk about freedom, STALLMAN is just another fascist.

SUPASTALL-MAN DAT HO!

>>54
Open source

>>56
Just quoting Wikipedia does not prove that you understand what you are talking about.

The reason >>55 quoted and saged (this is not how sage is supposed to be used) "Open source" is because Stallman is not behind open source -- Stallman is behind Free software (note the capitalized O).

Mr. Stallman is not content with all the software having it's source open, what's the use of that if you can't do whatever you want with it, anyway?

Thus he preaches for a model where all software is totally Free (with the exception that you can't make it un-Free).

>>58
I think you're misunderstanding the concept of "Open source" and "Free software." These have two very different. Since you're fond of Wikipedia, I'll let you look up the difference. But just to drive the point home, read http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html and count the number of occurances of "open"

>>57
stallman preaches for non-free open source software.
wikipedia is full of gnufaggotry.

>>62
the gnu grossly peremptory license is a non-free open source license, as are all "copyleft" licenses.

>>64
i mean free as "public domain".
stallman is advocating a very restrictive license, which doesn't seem consistent with his criticisms of "excessive extension of copyright laws".

if the gpl had a clause saying that the code can be considered public domain after a reasonable amount of time (3 years at the most), i wouldn't have any problem with it.

>>66
the philosophy behind the gpl supports excessive extension of copyright laws.

>>68
gpl doesn't protect anything except your right to use, modify, and distribute the code you have right now. other licenses (bsd, mit, etc.) offer the same protection, with fewer restrictions. public domain offers the same protection, with no restrictions, and doesn't contribute to [b][u]excessive extension of copyright laws[u][/b].

I could copy public domain code,modify it and sell it with profit.
yes, you could. you could also do the same thing with gpl-licensed code. you could also do the same thing with bsd- or mit-licensed code.
the difference is that releasing code into the public domain doesn't promote excessive extension of copyright laws, while releasing it under the gpl does.

>>72
if the gpl had a clause saying that the code can be considered public domain after a reasonable amount of time (3 years at the most), i wouldn't have any problem with it.

>>75
you would still have the code, and still have the right to use, modify, and distribute it. what are you complaining about? that some corporation might find some use for an ancient version of your code? under the gpl they can use it anyway, as long as they provide the source to anyone they sell it to. and what are the chances that the people who buy that corporation's commercial product are going to want to share it with a bunch of hippies, after they paid a significant amount of money for it?

>>77
EXCEPT THAT THE CODE IS STILL AVAILABLE UNDER THE PUBLIC DOMAIN AND THUS FREE

HOW IS THIS CONCEPT HARD TO GRASP
AAAAAAAAAAAAAA

What do you think about modifying copyrighted assembly code?
FrozenVoid! would be proud of you!