>>85
Considering that it's one third accurate and two thirds troll, he's already closer than you'll ever be.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-22 4:53
>>69 The GPL was made to insure the freedom of software, by doing so it obviously has to restrict you from making GPL code proprietary.
You can't "make" code proprietary, that's a common misconception. The distorting and confusing idea did not arise by accident. Companies that gain from the confusion, like MySQL AB (and now Sun), promoted it. The clearest way out of the confusion is to reject the idea entirely.
When someone "takes" your code and does something to it, it doesn't affect your own copy of the code at all. Code is information, not a physical object, it is copied, not moved, so it can't be "stolen" or "made proprietary". You better stop listening to propaganda and start thinking for yourself.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-22 5:02
>>88
This.
The thing that i don't understand about the GPL is the whole "we're just keeping your code free" shtick.
Now, think about this rationally.
If a company decides to use your code for a closed source application, then will that make your code non-free?
I mean, YOUR code will still be in the exact same place you left it, on your webserver/sourceforge account/whatever, available for anybody to download for free.
It doesn't do anything to keep your code "free", all it does is restrict the freedom of others.
that kind of faggotry leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
>>89
It just means they can't improve it and publish new versions without giving your the improvements. At least the LGPL does that. The GPL itself is more gay/viral.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-22 7:52
>>89 If a company decides to use your code for a closed source application, then will that make your code non-free?
It means I can not incorporate their extensions to my protocols which means there will be ten different incompatible products on the market and there you have <any non-GPL project> all over again.
Anyone have the text of the grad school advice "you need to be reading 10-15 papers a week" kopipe?
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-22 8:00
>>91
there will always be closed source applications, and there will always be ten different incompatible products on the market.
your GPL doesn't change that in the slightest. your point is invalid.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-22 8:11
if anything, using the GPL creates MORE incompatibility.
imagine if RFCs were licensed under the GPL.
we would be thrown back in to the age of when every company had their own set of protocols, because, lets face it, no business in their right mind wants to be forced release their whole code base publicly. so instead of using open standards that are infected with viral licensing faggotry they would instead write their own propriety standards.
the GPL only serves to make it less likely that propriety applications will go opensource.
a company like microsoft wouldn't suddenly say "ok, we want to use this GPL code so we're going to release all our source code publicly today".
that's completely absurd.
they require baby steps.
that's where better licenses come in. ones that provide actual freedom and don't scare away business.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-22 8:29
>>93 there will always be closed source applications, and there will always be ten different incompatible products on the market.
your GPL doesn't change that in the slightest. your point is invalid.
What it does change is that the GOOD companies will have to share their changes. The bad companies will of course reimplement the protocols into some incompatible shit, but those will hopefully not catch on...
if the ultimate goal of the opensource movement is to have all code released publicly, then there is no way you could ever do that without the help of big business, which means that the GPL is completely counter-productive.
microsoft, apple, oracle, ibm; they're not going to disappear overnight, nor are they going to completely refactor their business model overnight.
if what RMS really wants to do is make opensource code pervasive (not be a whiny, immature anti-corporation faggot), then he should drop the GPL completely and make a license that says something along the lines of "You can use this code for closed source means, but you are required to make a donation(s) equivalent to at least x amount of money or sponsor x amount of opensource developers in exchange", or something in a similar vein.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-22 8:45
>>96
companies wont fall for that either , because their managers are greedy , moneywhoring assholes who need it for fast cars, drugs and "bitches and hoes" .
it is not in any companies interest to "help their neighbour" .
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-22 8:48
>>96
Money? BAWWWW I CAN'T SELL MY RIPPED OFF GPL SOFTWARES BAWWWWWWW ::_________::::
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-22 8:53
/b/tard here
!MILKRIBS4K
99 replies
10/10 OP
jolly good show
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-22 8:58
>>99
are you discriminating against /b/tards?
HOW DARE YOU?
/prog/ IS A FAMILY FRIENDLY BORED YOU RACIST FUCK. GET OUT!
You can't "make" code proprietary, that's a common misconception.
Code is proprietary because an individual or company has claimed proprietary rights to it. If the user receives a computer program without all four freedoms, then the user cannot claim to have freedom. Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software.
When someone "takes" your code and does something to it, it doesn't affect your own copy of the code at all. Code is information, not a physical object, it is copied, not moved, so it can't be "stolen" or "made proprietary". You better stop listening to propaganda and start thinking for yourself.
Code can be 1. adopted, 2. forked and 3. published 4. while not granting the users their essential freedoms. Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. This is what it means when free software is "made proprietary. In order for the user must have all four freedoms at the same time.
>>105
So while it is true that free software will always remain free, RMS's problem is in the fact that people will use free software, derive a proprietary fork from it; a free program is being used as part of a proprietary program.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-22 19:15
>>107
That is, he's concerned that a free software project may benefit society too much, and believes obstacles must be created to prevent that.
>>108
It's all a question of perspective, he sees this "obstacle" as necessary to preserve that gains he did make. It may seem unnecessary today, but the GPL has been useful as an enforcement tool even as recently as Microsoft's hypervisor code.
>>105
So users can be made unfree simply by offering them choices. The mere presence of the proprietary software denies the user his freedom, even as all the original free software remains as it would have. That's some wookie quality logic there.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-22 20:24
>>111
Choice does not mean freedom. When we say freedom, we're talking about the right to help oneself as well as the right to share and cooperate with our community. Proprietary software forbids users from practising these things and so, making the choice of installing and operating proprietary software cannot mean freedom - users are forbidden to help themselves, users are forbidden to cooperate with their community.
>>114
get out. get out. get out. get out. get out. get out. get out. get out. get out. get out. get out. get out. get out. get out.
Please kill you'reself you grammar nazi scum. You don't deserve to live.