GPL, BSD, Opensource/Free Software movement.

I've be a mindless supporter of these movements for years now not because I was a developer myself but because most of them provided me with a lot of useful free software.

However now that I'm becoming more of a programmer I'm questioning the ideology behind these movements.

1. For which situations are these intended? For every developer?
2. Doesn't it go against the developer himself? How can he secure profit while still sustain such projects?

Just willing to learn.
Thanks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WfmblRHZ0s

Veni anii haxi.

>>42
Anii is not the correct form for anus in Latin.

>>43
It's actually the plural

>>44
``anii" would be the plural of ``anius".

>>45
No, no, ＇anii＇ is the plural of ＇anus＇ in all languages. It's /prog/ canon.

>>46
no, the plural of „anus‟ is „anī‟ or „ani‟. „ī‟ and „ii‟ are different things in latin.

>>47
Okay, but I can＇t find the [sup]\\\[/sup]ī^// key on my keyboard anywhere.

>>48
On my keyboard, it's right next to the ❝Ƿ❞ key.

>>43
But is haxi correct?

>>44
Whether it's plural or not is not the fuqing point. The anuses are the object of the sentence, not the subject, so they should be in accusative form, not nominative. Regardless of what declension the word anus falls under, the accusative form will never be ani or anii.

>>51
I should add that the correct accusative plural form of anus is anos¹.

¹ en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anus#Etymology_1

>>51-52
ACCUSE MY ANUS

>>51
I came, anus, haxed.

>>14
Actually it's more accurately socialism, which is egalitarianism since the GPL secures that code licensed with it remains free. The means of production rests mainly in the hands of developers, not some oligarchic corporation or institution that decides whether or not the source code of its programs shall be released.

One could argue that Stallman is communistic in his approach of promoting free software, since he sees proprietary software as akin to private property, which both socialist and communist ideologues sought to abolish; Stallman has stated more than once that proprietary software morally should not exist at all. You could also add that the producers of free software are the struggling proletariat, while the profiteers and owners of proprietary software the bourgeoisie.

Those stressing for GNU/Linux to dominate the operating system market could be considered a "dictatorship of the proletariat" event, though in real life, this usually required a government of some sort, (maybe FSF could push such through?), though it may be possible that it could be done without such a need for one in the software world. And that's that.

Also, JEWS.

>>55
Fucking Moron

>>56
Listen here, fuckface.

>>55 is right.
I don't understand why people get all up against that point of view. There is nothing wrong with this socialistic/communistic approach to software. It fits imaginary/pseudo-public property quite well, and it doesn't have the shortcomings it has when applied to physical property.

So yes, rms' approach is communistic. So what? It's a fine approach. Are you just getting upset about it because you think it's un-American or something like that? Who cares, just do what you think is right!

>>55
This kind of makes sense, since the GPL encourages common ownership of code, and to be able to modify it. Socialism doesn't necessarily require state intervention either, as it was practiced in small communes and such. You can consider the Free Software community to be part of their own little commune of sorts.

>>58
I don't understand why people get all up against that point of view
Because it's wrong. The GPL or any other free software license isn't public ownership. If I am running a piece of software that is licensed under the GPL, that is all it is, licensed. I do not have any of the rights provided to the 'owner' of a piece of 'intellectual property, save the ones explicitly granted by that license.

>>60 also true, it's no public domain or MIT.
It's an attempt to force code to stay public.

>>12

Freedom, if it is equal and just, means that society must give up certain liberties.
Freedom is having liberties. Giving them up is the opposite of freedom.

If “code is law,” then the real question we face is: who should control the code, the user, or an elite few? We believe the user is entitled to control the software one uses. Giving users that control is the goal of free software.
Code is not law.

I am constantly entertained by how GNU adherents attempt to redefine well-known terms without realizing they're doing so.

>>62
Freedom is having liberties. Giving them up is the opposite of freedom.
American teenager.

>>60-61
Exactly, but what we are alluding to where Stallman and other free software advocates in their writing call for abolition of proprietary software and I compared that to the socialist and communist ideologues that called for the abolition of physical private property ownership, as well as ownership of capital (capitalism).

It's an attempt to force code to stay public.
Exactly. Keeping code out of private hands.

>>64
I compared that to the socialist and communist ideologues
 If you're entire argument is that he is "communistic" because he has a strong abolitionist opinion on an issue, then I think we can call most politically motivated people "communistic"
Keeping code out of private hands.
There is absolutely no requirement fro you to make any code available unless you redistribute. How exactly is that "keeping code out of private hands"?

you're
Goddammit, this is all your fault, /prog/

>>66
No, that's not /prog/'s fault.

>>67
I blame the public school system and the substitution of the pursuit of excellence with the politically correct dogmas of inclusion and sensitivity. Fucking hippies/communists.

>>68
I blame your dad for not hitting you hard enough.

>>65
If you're entire argument is that he is "communistic" because he has a strong abolitionist opinion on an issue, then I think we can call most politically motivated people "communistic"
I'm not calling him "communistic" simply because of that, I'm saying that his critiques on "intellectual property" and proprietary software draw strong parallels with socialist and communist ideologues who had critiqued the ideas of private property and private ownership of capital, and called for their abolition, albeit tangible things rather than software as with Stallman.

>>65
There is absolutely no requirement fro you to make any code available unless you redistribute.
Well of course. If you make a program strictly for yourself, then you have no obligation to share its source code.
How exactly is that "keeping code out of private hands"?
In this case, I should have been more specific, meaning that the license keeps code out of private hands while redistributed.

>>70
So you're just practicing rhetorical fallacies, then?

>>62
Freedom is having liberties. Giving them up is the opposite of freedom.
In that case, I will choose to exercise my liberty to commandeer your house/car at gunpoint then make you march off a cliff. What's that you say? I don't have the liberty to threaten your life, misappropriate your domicile/possessions and terminate your life? But I will have more freedoms that way!

>>70
... draw strong parallels with socialist and communist ideologues who had critiqued the ideas of private property and private ownership of capital ...
You are confused. In communist ideologues, property and capital belongs to the public. The free software activist's idea is that users cannot have freedom whenever users accept the terms of proprietary software. Freedom in this case permits useful programs to foster a community of goodwill, cooperation, and collaboration. Free software is all about the right to live a good life and cooperate with your community. Cooperation happens when people desire to cooperate. Proprietary software will forbid and restrict cooperation. There is no forced sharing here, only the idea that users should have permission to share and cooperate. The idea is that developers should not have the power to restrict society's right to share and cooperate.

>>61
No. The GPL does not keep code public. People make GPL code public because they desire to make it public. When you publish software, you've made the software pubilc. If you never distribute software, you will keep the software private. If I hire someone to extend my copy of GNU ls and rename it to FV Directory Lister, I am not required to make that public; nobody will have a copy except me and maybe the developer. As soon as I convey a copy to my friend van Rossum, van Rossum is not required to make FV Directory Lister public; van Rossum has permission to make it public or van Rossum can keep his copy private. What the GPL does is forbid software distributors to restrict other people from sharing. People share because they want to share, not because they have to.

There are multiple anons in this thread that claim that the rms' views are socialistic and are analogous to communism. Just so you know, whoever is arguing against us.

>>72
So you're just practicing rhetorical fallacies, then?
I'm sorry?

>>73
You are confused. In communist ideologues, property and capital belongs to the public. The free software activist's idea is that users cannot have freedom whenever users accept the terms of proprietary software. Freedom in this case permits useful programs to foster a community of goodwill, cooperation, and collaboration. Free software is all about the right to live a good life and cooperate with your community. Cooperation happens when people desire to cooperate. Proprietary software will forbid and restrict cooperation. There is no forced sharing here, only the idea that users should have permission to share and cooperate. The idea is that developers should not have the power to restrict society's right to share and cooperate.
While true, I would still argue that Stallman and others sees proprietary software as oppressive analogous to how Marx and others saw property ownership, ownership of capital and the bourgeoisie as oppressive. They sound quite similar, albeit with different methods and intangible things (in this case, software).
No. The GPL does not keep code public. People make GPL code public because they desire to make it public. When you publish software, you've made the software pubilc. If you never distribute software, you will keep the software private. If I hire someone to extend my copy of GNU ls and rename it to FV Directory Lister, I am not required to make that public; nobody will have a copy except me and maybe the developer. As soon as I convey a copy to my friend van Rossum, van Rossum is not required to make FV Directory Lister public; van Rossum has permission to make it public or van Rossum can keep his copy private. What the GPL does is forbid software distributors to restrict other people from sharing. People share because they want to share, not because they have to.
Right, if they so chose to release their work(s) under the GNU GPL (as there's plenty of other licenses). Also, going to sidestep a bit, what if an individual(s) were to release their code under the GPL and then not keep their obligation to keeping the code public, what penalties (if any) would they receive from the FSF if reported?

what if an individual(s) were to release their code under the GPL and then not keep their obligation to keeping the code public, what penalties (if any) would they receive from the FSF if reported?
For the last time, the obligation is not to keep the code public, but to make the source code available to those you redistribute the software to. As long as you are redistributing the software, you have to provide, or offer to provide, the source code to whomever receives it from you. When you are no longer distributing the software, you don't have to make the source code available. GPL compliance can, and has been, enforced through the courts. I'm not aware of the extend to which there has been monetary compensation, but it has AFAIK always resulted in the release of the appropriate code.

When you are no longer distributing the software, you don't have to make the source code available.
If you distribute the software in binary form with an offer to provide the source code, you have to keep the source code available for 3 years after you stop distributing the software.

>>75
Technically speaking, you only have to use licensing terms that do not conflict with the GPL. You can publish your own modifications without any terms of restriction i.e. your specific modifications can be public domain and the remaining bits that are original remains GPL.

what if an individual(s) were to release their code under the GPL and then not keep their obligation to keeping the code public, what penalties (if any) would they receive from the FSF if reported?
The only thing that the FSF could do is report to the public that individual as being dishonest. As the copyright holder, he makes a promise to share source code together with the binary under the GPL. He has no legal obligation to share his code as the copyright holder.

>>77
You've provided a written offer for that performance. Of course you should keep your promise.

>>79
Just don't come crying to me when a hard drive failure turns you into a criminal.