Copyright laws are among the most significant in shaping the world as we know it. Copyright laws are not about entertainment, but rather, about thought control.
As a species we are standing on a crossroads never before faced by any species on the planet.
I argue that the single most significant contributor to our supremacy over this planet is our capacity for meme-exchange. We have taken mammalian peer-learning to an unprecedented level. The fact that every member of our species frequently expends great energy in the singular business of meme-aquisition, and that we spend just as much energy in the business of meme-distribution, serves as a testament to its survival-utility and evolutionary effectiveness.
Are we to embrace this freedom, allow the currents of information to flow unrestrained, and see where our exponentially-increasing rate of technological evolution (which, from a more metaphysical perspective, is not so different from our genetic evolution) takes us?
Or are we, on the other hand, going to lock ourselves down and block this flow, all in the name of preserving the economic prosperity of a select few?
Is our future one of wild change and uncertainty, or one of regularity and control?
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-02 11:17
Go away RMS Moot.
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-02 12:08
But I want to sell my software as license based, GPL kinda makes that hard, unless I make my soft almost impossible to compile with cryptic makefiles and dependencies.
I think we can all agree that the GPL could be a shorter license.
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-02 13:05
I will never allow RMS Mike Shuttleworth to steal my work just because he says I am ``free'' to take his at no cost, but under viral terms hidden amongst legalese, in an attempt to spread his communist ideology.
Name:
Sam Zoy2009-05-02 14:22
Switch to the WTFPL now
Copyright laws, and licenses in general, are unscientific and ultimately destructive.
As a species we are standing on a crossroads never before faced by any species on our planet.
I argue that the most significant contributor to our demise will be through entangling ourselves in red tape.
Are we to do whatever the fuck we want?
Or are we, on the other hand, to become slaves to licenses?
Is our future one of freedom, or one of bureaucracy?
Copyright (c) Year(s), Company or Person's Name <E-mail address>
Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any
purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above
copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES
WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR
ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES
WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN
ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF
OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.
The OpenBSD folks use it too.
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-02 16:55
>>1
why would i switch from a free license to the anti-free GNU GPL Proprietary License?
>>11 define: proprietary
The word proprietary indicates that a party, or proprietor, exercises private ownership, control or use over an item of property.
>>13 All your code are belong to RMS
How so? If it's because the use of GNU GPL'd code is disallowed from being used in proprietary programs that's for philosophical reasons, so that it remains free for all users.
Although, I do find the GPL to be a bit restrictive in that sense, but it's for a good reason.
>>14
No, BSD-licensed code remains free for all users. GPL code cannot be used freely because it‘s always trying to hijack everybody else‘s code.
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-02 18:05
BSD > GPL.
Even if your code is incorporated into a closed source project it will still be open source and available to everybody because it's still available in the place in which you originally uploaded it.
When a company decides to use your code do they also tear down your sourceforge page? No, it's still there and the code is still available to anybody who wants it.
>>15
Elaborate, please. How can a license like the GNU GPL that starts out with:
`` The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed
to take away your freedom to share and change the works. By contrast,
the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to
share and change all versions of a program--to make sure it remains free
software for all its users. We, the Free Software Foundation, use the
GNU General Public License for most of our software; it applies also to
any other work released this way by its authors. You can apply it to
your programs, too.'' ``hijack everybody else's code''?
>>16 Even if your code is incorporated into a closed source project it will still be open source and available to everybody because it's still available in the place in which you originally uploaded it.
You say ``closed source'', but I don't think it means what you think it means.
>>19
You're right. Fuck this shit, sage-ing a troll thread.
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-02 18:50
>>17
that part of the license is like the text on the back cover of a book...
you know what i'm talking about, that paragraph or two written by someone who hasn't actually read the book, but instead just picked out about 15 words at random from the book and tried to guess what the book is about.
>>14
The GPL is restrictive roughly like a set of rules in a sporting match; the rules are intended to keep things fair for everyone.
>>15
The GPL is free for all users. Everybody has the authority to use the software when they wish, everybody has the authority to modify the software when they wish, everybody has the authority to share verbatim copies when they wish, and everybody has the authority to share modified copies of the software when they wish. Also, the GPL doesn't do any hijacking, you are seriously confused about what the GPL does.
>>16
The problem is that people will fork the free software and make it non-free. The original free software will always remain free.
>>17,18
Just ignore the shit from the haters. The intent of the GPL is so all licensees are guaranteed to possess permission to the four freedom.
I know exactly what the GPL does, and it prevents users from sharing ``as they wish'', by requiring them to share their own work just because they're using something that was supposed to be free.
BSD promotes the advancement of computing as a whole; GPL forbids it in favor of ``sticking it to the man (i.e. everyone)''.
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-02 19:36
>>27
What? Well, I never! It's absurd to think that the GNU Project does not love ENTERPRISE QUALITY business.
BSD promotes the advancement of computing as a whole; GPL forbids it in favor of ``sticking it to the man (i.e. everyone)''.
Why do you compare the BSD with the GPL, one is a system, the other is a set of licensing terms intended for software distribution?
The GPL requires nobody to share anything.
neither does microsoft's licensing for the windows source code. i guess by your definition windows is free software, too.
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-02 20:26
>>30
No. The software licensing terms for some of Microsoft's software do not permit me all of my free software rights:
0. the right to run the software for any purpose whenever I wish
1. the right to study and tinker with the software. Access to the source code is a prerequisite for this
2. the right to help my neighbour when I wish. This is right to share verbatim copies of the software.
3. the right to contribute to my community when I wish. This is the right to share my modifications.
Windows doesn't permit me to practise freedom 0 let alone the other three freedoms.
>>29
There is a set of licenses called the BSD licenses. Clearly, when talking about licenses, BSD can be inferred to mean that.
The licenses aren't mutually exclusive though, and each have their own advantage in different situations. By using the GPL you make sure that your open source code stays that way, and by using the BSD licenses you make it so your open source code can be used by anyone for anything without many strings attached.
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-02 20:41
>>31
the licensing for the windows source code allows 0 and 1.
the GPL Proprietary License doesn't allow 2 and 3. once you share it once, you're required to share it with anyone who wants it for three years. that's not "when i wish".
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-02 21:02
the licensing for the windows source code allows 0 and 1.
I don't believe that Microsoft has ever published to source code to the Windows system. I only know that .
the GPL Proprietary License doesn't allow 2 and 3. once you share it once, you're required to share it with anyone who wants it for three years. that's not "when i wish".
I think you're confused. We're talking about the GPL, the GNU General Public License, not the GPL Proprietary License.
1.2 Mandatory Activation. The license rights granted under this EULA are limited to the first thirty (30) days after you first install the Software unless you supply information required to activate your licensed copy in the manner described during the setup sequence of the Software. You can activate the Software through the use of the Internet or telephone; toll charges may apply. You may also need to reactivate the Software if you modify your computer hardware or alter the Software. There are technological measures in this Software that are designed to prevent unlicensed use of the Software. Microsoft will use those measures to confirm you have a legally licensed copy of the Software. If you are not using a licensed copy of the Software, you are not allowed to install the Software or future Software updates. Microsoft will not collect any personally identifiable information from your Workstation Computer during this process.
You don't even have the right to freedom 0. Freedom 0 means having implicit right to run the software at any time for any purpose. You must first ask Microsoft's permission before you are allowed to use Windows.
Name:
Super GNU Defender of the GPL2009-05-02 22:11
Yes, RMS, you are right, but you are also talking to the same people who tolerated ANONIX.
>>33 once you share it once, you're required to share it with anyone who wants it for three years
Firstly, it's only the source code you have to share. You can still distribute or not distribute the software to whomsoever you like. Secondly, this restriction is necessary to grant freedoms 0 and 1 to everyone.
Though I admit I don't particularly like the idea of having to keep everything around, I think this is more relevant to people who distribute software en masse. It's not like your friend is going to prosecute you for not keeping the source to the tool you compiled 2 years ago.
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-03 13:13
>>35-36
you obviously haven't seen the licensing terms for the source code.
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-03 16:31
It's not like your friend is going to prosecute you for not keeping the source to the tool you compiled 2 years ago.
Perhaps not, but any other free software zealot could prosecute you just as easily. Let's face it, folks: The GPL is not a ``free software'' license
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-03 16:50
>>40
No matter what, you're still being a bad neighbor if you just delete things randomly without any notice to anyone. Of course you can do whatever the hell you please, but it's still bad practice.
>>41
No one said anything about deleting things "randomly without any notice to anyone". We were talking about what happens if you lose the source code. But nice try.
6/10
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-03 19:43
What exactly do you think gives you the right to licence other peoples' code, GNUtards?
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-03 19:46
>>42
I was talking about being a bad neighbor by removing source code randomly. If you lose the source code by accident, obviously that's an entirely different issue. Please re-read what I wrote.
I'm a car designer.
I designed the fuel cap of a car; therefore the whole car's design belongs to me and everybody must do what I command them too.
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-03 20:31
I agree with everyone else that GPL is not a true free software license. Public domain is that.
Those that think that GPL can actually protect your freedom are mistaken, if someone doesn't want to follow it, they can just do this:
1. Take GPL code
2. Make application to accept some sort of weird custom external interface
3. Make a wrapper for the GPL code which is compatible with said interface.
4. Release wrapper+original gpl'ed code to the public
5. Use/distribute your application as you wish.
This complies to the GPL (and I've seen plenty of companies doing it) and doesn't force them to release any of their code. The only thing they're releasing is a useless(to anyone but them) small wrapper and the original GPL'ed lib(which was available before). The interface is done as a plugin, so the application can work without it, but in reality it's used all the time.
This is how one incorporates GPLed code in his application while still remaining closed source.
The GPL does not protect anything except your original code and is nothing more than a license to lock in people into releasing modified code. Public domain/no licese is superior. The world would be a better place if people realized that licenses are stupid and they should just release the code without being forced by anyone/anything to do it(example: GPL ), alas human nature is a bitch.
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-03 20:32
too
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-03 21:29
>>46
How about we write the GGPL, Greater GNU Lesser Public License. To be able to use or modify the code at all, you must release the modified code- and release any other source code that you have access to, if the licensing of any other source code you can access does not permit you to release it then you may not use the GGPL'd code for any purpose. That way, people will have true freedom from proprietary software.
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-03 21:43
>>46
Once again, the GPL does not force anyone to do anything. You are confused about what the GPL does.
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-03 21:44
>>44
the GPL doesn't differentiate between those situations. losing the source code violates the license.
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-03 22:07
You people are misunderstanding us. When we talk about free software, we are referring to freedom. RMS has identified four specific freedoms that one must have in order to remain as a free and upstanding member of society http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html .
The freedoms that we value specifically allows us to maintain our sovereignty (our right to help ourself) and allows us to live as upstanding citizens (our right to share computer software). When citizens lack the right to practise any of these freedoms, the citizen cannot say that she is living in freedom: how one live in freedom when one is forbidden to help oneself or forbidden to live as a good neighbour.
This sort of freedom works only the basis of mutual respect. In the case of computer software, this means that users should possess the four freedoms of free software. This also means that users must have access to the related computer software source code.
The GNU General Public License is a free software simply because ALL users of the software licensed under the GPL possess the four freedoms. The simplest way to maintain compliance with the GPL is to publish source code together with the binary program (as they are two different forms of exactly the same thing) AND inform the recipient about their rights AND the distributor should not impose restrictions that will take restrict the recipient's rights. It is really that simple: publish the source code together with the binary, let them know of their rights, do not take actions to prevent them from practising their rights.
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-03 22:23
>>51
Just because RMS makes four criteria for "freedom" doesn't mean it defines freedom. You already established that you don't have the freedom to distribute a binary without the source code. The GPL might be free according to those criteria, but it's not free in a definitive sense because there are other definitions of free which are reasonable and widely used in the programming world.
>>50
Right, but I wasn't talking about the GPL specifically. I was just saying that arbitrarily removing code is bad practice and makes you a bad neighbor.
>>53-54
What business is it of anyone else‘s what code I keep on my computer and what I delete after I‘m done compiling it? Your being is ridiculous.
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-05 13:03
>>55
I'm talking about whatever code you may happen to put up online with the intent to distribute said code. I'm not talking about code that is just lying around on your hard drive for your own personal use.
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-05 13:09
linux is communist, therefore it fails
I mean, look at russia, they started off as an underdeveloped agrarian shithole and reached about the 60% of the size of the American economy by the 70's, becoming the second in the world, became the #1 in heavy industry, started the space age, and... okay bad example, but you get what I mean. You cannot deny bill or steve his profits.
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-05 13:22
>>57
Communist? You're thinking of the BSDs, not Linux.
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-05 13:34
>>57 Traceback (most recent call last):
Post 57, line 1, in <Switch to GPL now>
linux is communist, therefore it fails
LogicError: conclusion not supported by predicate