First of all: I like opensource, and contribute to it whereever I can.
But I hate GNU/GPL - Mostly due to it's fascist understanding of Opensource.
Here is what the GPL "protects":
1. The Author.
2. Te right of the Author to create deriative work.
3. The copyright of the software to the Author.
4. The Author.
5. The Author.
6. The Author.
Here is what you have to do, if you link against a Library that is licensed under the terms of the GPL, and you want to make your library publicly usable by other people:
1. Make it Opensource, so GNU/Jews can steal your aryan technology.
2. License under the GPL, or GNU/Jews will fucking sue you, so they can steal your superior Technology.
3. Give up the right to make Money with __your__ Software. (Technically, the GPL doesn't forbid commercial use; but there is only a tiny little bunch of noteworthy Projects that are licensed under the GPL (not to be confused with the LGPL, which is used by Qt, and Qt is very popular, and did infact make people rich)).
So in the end, the GPL virtually enforces Opensource. That's some superb communism right there.
Don't get me wrong, though; The LGPL (Not a typo) is great for Applications, since it doesn't enforce the developer to opensource his software.
All that can be avoided by choosing a better License.
Good Licenses (in this order):
1. Public Domain (see http://www.unlicense.org/)
2. Boost Software License
3. BSD License
4. MIT License
5. Apache2 License
Bad Licenses (in this order):
1. GPL (1 to 3 and higher)
2. Affero GPL
3. APSL
4. LGPL
5. MPL
>>5
With GPL you can still make modifications and run your modified software through a remote service without having to give the rest of the world your changes, however with Affero GPL, you have to give any change you make, even if the software is for internal use, at least as long as other people can somehow interact with it.
>>12 But I hate GNU/GPL - Mostly due to it's fascist understanding of Opensource.
If one can't figure out why this is factually incorrect by 2011, one has no credibility in this topic.
>>13
I'll happily discuss this topic, if you tell me how exactly this is "factually incorrect by 2011".
Starting with GPLv3, the whole thing got worse at best.
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-27 4:04
>>17
The GPL is agnostic to open source; it does not imply or assert anything about open source. Therefore, it cannot misunderstand open source (never mind have a fascist understanding) as it doesn't deal with it.
>>1 attacks strawmen with his allegation of what the GPL protects. There are more strawmen arguments and non-sequitur, some content-free emotional arguments, more strawmen, more strawmen and more non-sequitur that are supposed to be derived from previous strawmen arguments.
Therefore, I can only conclude that >>1 is either satire or confused.
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-27 5:29
>>18
Instead of diagnosing >>1, you could also just tell me which points exactly are wrong.
Right now, you sound just like a typical GNU Fanboy.
>>1
No one is forcing you to use or link to GPL code.
Why do you feel entitled use someone else's work under your own little world view rules. Respect the original authors wishes. Man up, stop whining and write your own code you fucking parasite.
>>22 No one is forcing you to use or link to GPL code.
I was deliberately referering to cases where people would link against a GPL'd Library. This thread would be pointless otherwise, no?
Why do you feel entitled use someone else's work under your own little world view rules.
That sentence looks like you wanted to type three sentences, but somehow managed to merge them... or whatever.
Respect the original authors wishes.
It's not like I have a choice in case of GPL'd stuff.
Man up, stop whining and write your own code
Oh trust me, I do. Nothing is more satisfying than countertrolling GPL commie jews by rewriting their stuff in a better way, and with a far more liberal license.
you fucking parasite.
I don't see how i'm a Parasite. I never used GPL stuff in an unfair way, hence why I avoid the GPL whereever possible.
>>22 Respect the original authors wishes.
People who write GPLed code are invariably insecure cocksuckers and deserve no respect in any form whatsoever.
They're just banding together as a petty attempt at an attack on their betters.
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-27 18:15
>>19
Fine.
The purpose of the GPL is stated right in the preamble.
The GPL does not require anybody to "open source" anything. It is agnostic to open source and doesn't deal with it.
The GPL has nothing to do with Jews nor theft.
The GPL does not require one to stop making money with software. The language dealing with money refers to very specific cases of software conveyancing.
The GPL does not virally enforce open source. It is agnostic to open source and doesn't deal with it.
The GPL has nothing to do with communism. Communism is a method of sharing society's wealth within the society. It states that the wealth and property of the society belongs to the whole of society. GPL has nothing to do with sharing wealth nor property, it is all about permitting users to practise the intent as written in the preamble.
>>26 The GPL does not require anybody to "open source" anything. It is agnostic to open source and doesn't deal with it.
"open source" -> making the source disponible to anyone.
The GPL is The Forced Sharing of Code.
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-27 18:33
>>26
It's amazing how you managed to ignore the entire thread.
The purpose of the GPL is stated right in the preamble.
Thanks, Captain obvious.
The GPL does not require anybody to "open source" anything. It is agnostic to open source and doesn't deal with it.
The GPL requires the developer to license his software under the terms of the GPL, if he links against / uses GPL'd parts in his software, when he is releasing it publicly. That makes it practically equal to "enforcing opensource". Learn to read.
The GPL does not require one to stop making money with software. The language dealing with money refers to very specific cases of software conveyancing.
True. In theory. In practice, Nobody ever became rich by selling GPL'd software, and nobody ever will. Even redhat only got rich by selling support, or non-GPL software, but never through Linux itself.
The GPL has nothing to do with communism. Communism is a method of sharing society's wealth within the society.
Quoting the GPLv1: "The licenses for most software are designed to take away your
freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public
License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free
software--to make sure the software is free for all its users".
Yeah. Doesn't sound like Communism, because it is communism.
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-27 19:04
>>29
If it isnt state planned and enforced, it isnt communism.
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-27 19:09
I ignore most of what's written here because these arguments are falsehoods and misunderstandings that have been advanced for decades. I will also mention the name calling and derision that implies jealousy, satire or plain confusion. The GPL requires the developer to license his software under the terms of the GPL, if he links against / uses GPL'd parts in his software, when he is releasing it publicly.
Wrong; this is a common misunderstanding of the GPL. Protip: GPL derived software must be GPL compatible. The easiest way for this is to license the derivative under the GPL.
>"open source" -> making the source disponible to anyone.
Wrong. Open source is about the public development of computer software. Please don't conflate the method of OSS development with the intent of open source initiative. In practice, Nobody ever became rich by selling GPL'd software, and nobody ever will.
Please don't conflate earning a living and getting rich. I earn a living selling GPL software, as well as sell services related to the software. I got rich by studying finance, making plans then carrying out my financial plans, not from my software business that sells GPL software. Yeah. Doesn't sound like Communism, because it is communism.
Are you seriously implying that software equates to wealth?
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-27 19:09
When your president will publicly announce that from this day everybody in country must GPL and all other software is prohibited as counter-revolutionary, then it will become Communism.
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-27 19:10
* Are you seriously implying that sharing software equates to sharing wealth?
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-27 19:13
>>31
>Are you seriously implying that software equates to wealth?
"Wealth" is pretty subjective concept. It is a matter of believing that something worth something for you. If you're in warm country, you wont consider warm clothes as wealth, cuz they're useless to you.
>>34
My point is about contending the act of sharing software with the social arrangement communism. I assert the GPL does not imply communism.
If I lend my car to my friend, am I practising communism?
If I share my dinner with strangers, am I practising communism?
If I donate money to scientific research, am I practising communism?
>>35 the state of being rich and affluent; having a plentiful supply of material goods and money; the quality of profuse abundance
I guess with this definition, you can share wealth through software.
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-27 19:48
define "rich and affluent"
define "material goods"
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-27 19:56
>>36
>If I lend my car to my friend, am I practising communism?
During Communism, you cant use car without written permission from authorities. You and your friend must use public transport as every good young Pioneer does. Besides, public transport is more effecrive for economy in general.
>>40
No! It is you, who dont use defines at all or operates with loosely defined terms.
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-27 20:24
>>31 that implies jealousy
Jealous of what exactly? Everyone knows that the GNU coreutils, which is pretty much the only thing GNU ever contributed to the Linux project, are extremely badly written, infact, every single one of them has memory leaks (Keep in mind that this is why GNU wants you to name Linux as GNU/Linux).
Protip: GPL derived software must be GPL compatible
... Which is the same damn thing in the end.
Please don't conflate earning a living and getting rich
I haven't. I've deliberately written that nobody ever got rich by selling GPL'd software.
Are you seriously implying that software equates to wealth?
If you wouldn't have skipped history class in school, you would know that communism made more people poor than it made them "wealthy".
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-27 21:15
For an anarchist programmer, like myself, who is against the very idea of "intellectual property" — ideas being non-scarce goods not subject to the same rules of rivalry as physical ones — it seems obvious tht the GPL commits the same offense that it purports to attack. I refer specifically to the use of copyright in an attempt to undermine copyright. Any system of morality that upholds certain principles, but then requires the violation of those selfsame principles, is inconsistent. We can only conclude that use of the GPL is morally wrong, and Richard Stallman is a hypocrite.
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-27 21:19
>>1
>Also, I'm a Linuxfag. Ubuntufag, to be precise.
There's your problem. Use a real distro for fucks sake.
There's your problem. Go back to /b/ for fucks sake.
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-27 21:42
Jealous of what exactly?
Software proprietors want users to remain helpless and many people (both users and proprietors) are often confused about software that permits freedom. With proprietary software, users are not implicitly permitted to use software as they desire, users are not implicitly permitted to study and improve the software as they desire.
You may be correct about the implementation of GNU software being less than optimal. The point of GNU isn't technical superiority, the point is to permit users to live upstanding lives and cooperate with their communities. This cannot happen with proprietary software. ... Which is the same damn thing in the end.
No. The argument put forward was, "GPL derived software must be licensed under the GPL". The reality is that, "to convey GPL derived software, the software license must not conflict with the GPL (aka be compatible with the GPL)". I haven't. I've deliberately written that nobody ever got rich by selling GPL'd software.
I was addressing this argument, "3. Give up the right to make Money with __your__ Software". When people say 'make money', they mean that they want to get rich. If they didn't want to imply getting rich through software, they should use the language, "earn a living". If you wouldn't have skipped history class in school, you would know that communism made more people poor than it made them "wealthy".
That's great, but the GPL still has nothing to do with communism. The only thing that the GPL does is ensure that the user has permission to live a good life and cooperate with their community.
>>46
The point of the GPL is to give users permission to use the software, study and improve the software, share the software and contribute to their community. The GPL is not about opposing the idea of intellectual property. Opposing the idea of intellectual property is a different discussion not related to the GPL.
The term "intellectual" in "intellectual property" is strongly associated with jews. In Russian language "intellectual" is just another term for an arrogant jew, as many jews called themselves "intellectuals" and openly considered other ethnicities as slaves for The Great Jewish Communism.
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-27 22:02
>>52
Legitimate organisations that have responsibilities in this society and make direct use of computers should care about licences. Schools, councils, governments, non-profits, and community gatherings should care about the threat imposed to them by software proprietors.
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-27 22:07
>>55
Governments are for pussies and compulsory education - for slaves.
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-28 9:24
>>49 With proprietary software, users are not implicitly permitted to use software as they desire, users are not implicitly permitted to study and improve the software as they desire.
If this is the way the author wants it, why should it be forbidden? Same with OSS: If the author wants to release the source, why should it be forbidden? You are comparing pears to apples here.
No. The argument put forward was, "GPL derived software must be licensed under the GPL". The reality is that, "to convey GPL derived software, the software license must not conflict with the GPL (aka be compatible with the GPL)".
... And since there are only very few GPL compatible licenses, it is, infact, the same goddamn thing.
If they didn't want to imply getting rich through software, they should use the language, "earn a living".
I'm not sure if you just don't want to see my point, or you're plainly ignoring it: I DO know the difference between "earning a living", and "becoming rich". And I was stating what everyone already knew: That not a single person will ever become rich by selling GPL'd software, but instead, could only earn a living with it.
The only thing that the GPL does is ensure that the user has permission to live a good life and cooperate with their community.
Other, more liberal licenses do allow the user the same thing. The GPL just adds opensource enforcement to it.
When I release stuff under the MIT License, mostly libraries which are supposed to either statically or dynamically linked, then I do that because I know that some people want to make good money with it. Or because some people don't want to share their algorithms. Whatever reason it may be that makes them decide not to share the source, is fine by me; As this is what unconditial opensource is about; You make your own technology freely available, BUT you don't expect to be repaid by the user (only by the company, if you work for one), be it with the source, or money. The License would allow me to still sell products build upon it; and it would allow other people the same.
But I'm sure a GNU Zealot like you would never understand such a thing.
Name:
Tab!99commaNDQ2010-12-28 15:05
All it takes to circumvent the GPL's virality is to build a separate daemon process that falls under the GPL and communicate with it from your real application via sockets ┐('～`；)┌
>>57 If this is the way the author wants it, why should it be forbidden? ... You are comparing pears to apples here.
No. The point was about how jealousy was related to name calling. A different point I also made is that developers have an unjust power over their users' lives; developers ask users the choice to be helpless. Users cannot live in freedom when they choose to be helpless. The bit I made bold is the whole point of the free software movement: users cannot live in freedom when they accept proprietary software. The points are USER freedom and how developers restrict USER freedom.
it is, infact, the same goddamn thing.
They may be close, they may have the same immediate results but they're not the same thing and it is sloppy logic to think they are the same. GPL original + CC0 derivative as not the same as GPL original + GPL derivative.
I'm not sure if you just don't want to see my point, or you're plainly ignoring it
I agree with the point that, "people have not become rich by selling GPL software", I just didn't word myself to meet that point. I don't agree that people cannot get rich selling GPL software. I might make that my next project just to see if I can do it: establish a software project that is licensed under the GPL and will make me a tidy fortune. Be sure to read news about it in mid 2014 if I happen to start the project mid 2012.
The GPL just adds opensource enforcement to it.
This is where there is confusion: you believe that the GPL is about open source. Please don't define open source to mean, "the source code is visible". The Open Source Initiative proposed their idea as a software development method that'll improve the quality of software developed in such a fashion. The GPL is agnostic to open source development and cannot enforce open source development. The GPL permits private development and usage and therefore is not inherently about open source: open source is about public development of computer software.
But I'm sure a GNU Zealot like you would never understand such a thing.
There again with the name calling. You are confused about my motive. My motive is not about open source: the public development of computer software. My motive is about permitting the USER to practise freedom. Your motive is to publish software that anybody may use and further redistribute at will with or without any morals towards USER freedom. My motive is to promote USER freedom. I personally support the open source projects Haiku, Syllable, Inferno, Minix and OpenSolaris. I license my open source developed software according to the community suggestions, the GPL is merely one choice out of any number of valid choices.
>>58
That's fine, you're not actually deriving from the GPL software when you work in that manner.
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-29 0:30
>>57 If this is the way the author wants it, why should it be forbidden? ... You are comparing pears to apples here.
No. The point was about how jealousy was related to name calling. A different point I also made is that developers have an unjust power over their users' lives; developers ask users the choice to be helpless. Users cannot live in freedom when they choose to be helpless. The bit I made bold is the whole point of the free software movement: users cannot live in freedom when they accept proprietary software. The points are USER freedom and how developers restrict USER freedom.
it is, infact, the same goddamn thing.
They may be close, they may have the same immediate results but they're not the same thing and it is sloppy logic to think they are the same. GPL original + CC0 derivative as not the same as GPL original + GPL derivative.
I'm not sure if you just don't want to see my point, or you're plainly ignoring it
I agree with the point that, "people have not become rich by selling GPL software", I just didn't word myself to meet that point. I don't agree that people cannot get rich selling GPL software. I might make that my next project just to see if I can do it: establish a software project that is licensed under the GPL and will make me a tidy fortune. Be sure to read news about it in mid 2014 if I happen to start the project mid 2012.
The GPL just adds opensource enforcement to it.
This is where there is confusion: you believe that the GPL is about open source. Please don't define open source to mean, "the source code is visible". The Open Source Initiative proposed their idea as a software development method that'll improve the quality of software developed in such a fashion. The GPL is agnostic to open source development and cannot enforce open source development. The GPL permits private development and usage and therefore is not inherently about open source: open source is about public development of computer software.
But I'm sure a GNU Zealot like you would never understand such a thing.
There again with the name calling. You are confused about my motive. My motive is not about open source: the public development of computer software. My motive is about permitting the USER to practise freedom. Your motive is to publish software that anybody may use and further redistribute at will with or without any morals towards USER freedom. My motive is to promote USER freedom. I personally support the open source projects Haiku, Syllable, Inferno, Minix and OpenSolaris. I license my open source developed software according to the community suggestions, the GPL is merely one choice out of any number of valid choices.
>>58
That's fine, you're not actually deriving from the GPL software when you work in that manner.
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-29 0:31
>>57 If this is the way the author wants it, why should it be forbidden? ... You are comparing pears to apples here.
No. The point was about how jealousy was related to name calling. A different point I also made is that developers have an unjust power over their users' lives; developers ask users the choice to be helpless. Users cannot live in freedom when they choose to be helpless. The bit I made bold is the whole point of the free software movement: users cannot live in freedom when they accept proprietary software. The points are USER freedom and how developers restrict USER freedom.
it is, infact, the same goddamn thing.
They may be close, they may have the same immediate results but they're not the same thing and it is sloppy logic to think they are the same. GPL original + CC0 derivative as not the same as GPL original + GPL derivative.
I'm not sure if you just don't want to see my point, or you're plainly ignoring it
I agree with the point that, "people have not become rich by selling GPL software", I just didn't word myself to meet that point. I don't agree that people cannot get rich selling GPL software. I might make that my next project just to see if I can do it: establish a software project that is licensed under the GPL and will make me a tidy fortune. Be sure to read news about it in mid 2014 if I happen to start the project mid 2012.
The GPL just adds opensource enforcement to it.
This is where there is confusion: you believe that the GPL is about open source. Please don't define open source to mean, "the source code is visible". The Open Source Initiative proposed their idea as a software development method that'll improve the quality of software developed in such a fashion. The GPL is agnostic to open source development and cannot enforce open source development. The GPL permits private development and usage and therefore is not inherently about open source: open source is about public development of computer software.
But I'm sure a GNU Zealot like you would never understand such a thing.
There again with the name calling. You are confused about my motive. My motive is not about open source: the public development of computer software. My motive is about permitting the USER to practise freedom. Your motive is to publish software that anybody may use and further redistribute at will with or without any morals towards USER freedom. My motive is to promote USER freedom. I personally support the open source projects Haiku, Syllable, Inferno, Minix and OpenSolaris. I license my open source developed software according to the community suggestions, the GPL is merely one choice out of any number of valid choices.
>>58
That's fine, you're not actually deriving from the GPL software when you work in that manner.
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-29 0:32
>>57 If this is the way the author wants it, why should it be forbidden? ... You are comparing pears to apples here.
No. The point was about how jealousy was related to name calling. A different point I also made is that developers have an unjust power over their users' lives; developers ask users the choice to be helpless. Users cannot live in freedom when they choose to be helpless. The bit I made bold is the whole point of the free software movement: users cannot live in freedom when they accept proprietary software. The points are USER freedom and how developers restrict USER freedom.
it is, infact, the same goddamn thing.
They may be close, they may have the same immediate results but they're not the same thing and it is sloppy logic to think they are the same. GPL original + CC0 derivative as not the same as GPL original + GPL derivative.
I'm not sure if you just don't want to see my point, or you're plainly ignoring it
I agree with the point that, "people have not become rich by selling GPL software", I just didn't word myself to meet that point. I don't agree that people cannot get rich selling GPL software. I might make that my next project just to see if I can do it: establish a software project that is licensed under the GPL and will make me a tidy fortune. Be sure to read news about it in mid 2014 if I happen to start the project mid 2012.
The GPL just adds opensource enforcement to it.
This is where there is confusion: you believe that the GPL is about open source. Please don't define open source to mean, "the source code is visible". The Open Source Initiative proposed their idea as a software development method that'll improve the quality of software developed in such a fashion. The GPL is agnostic to open source development and cannot enforce open source development. The GPL permits private development and usage and therefore is not inherently about open source: open source is about public development of computer software.
But I'm sure a GNU Zealot like you would never understand such a thing.
There again with the name calling. You are confused about my motive. My motive is not about open source: the public development of computer software. My motive is about permitting the USER to practise freedom. Your motive is to publish software that anybody may use and further redistribute at will with or without any morals towards USER freedom. My motive is to promote USER freedom. I personally support the open source projects Haiku, Syllable, Inferno, Minix and OpenSolaris. I license my open source developed software according to the community suggestions, the GPL is merely one choice out of any number of valid choices.
>>58
That's fine, you're not actually deriving from the GPL software when you work in that manner.
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-29 0:49
I personally support the open source projects Haiku, Syllable, Inferno, Minix and OpenSolaris
AND ANONIX
The GPL is agnostic to open source development and cannot enforce open source development.
Correct; it does, however, enforce rather viral restrictions on distribution, restrictions which make code under the GPL rather useless for companies whose business model depends on the distribution/installation of software.
I will admit that it does work OK for selling services built with GPL'd software; RMS's fantasy vision apparently didn't include the interwebs.
>>60 Developers ask users the choice to be helpless. Users cannot live in freedom when they choose to be helpless. The bit I made bold is the whole point of the free software movement: users cannot live in freedom when they accept proprietary software.
Yet another clue that you're dealing with a GNU zealot: they give random and incoherent meanings to existing words.
Join us now and share the software;
You'll be free, hackers, you'll be free.
Join us now and share the software;
You'll be free, hackers, you'll be free.
Hoarders can get piles of money,
That is true, hackers, that is true.
But they cannot help their neighbors;
That's not good, hackers, that's not good.
When we have enough free software
At our call, hackers, at our call,
We'll kick out those dirty licenses
Ever more, hackers, ever more.
Join us now and share the software;
You'll be free, hackers, you'll be free.
Join us now and share the software;
You'll be free, hackers, you'll be free.
Lets sing a song together
thats not even a song, its more like a chant, a completely monotone chant. Surprising because rms is supposed to be a muscian with the recorder. Are there any youtube videos of rms playing a recorder? if it sounds like this song he probably just plays it like a kazoo and doenst bother covering the holes to change the pitch. There has got to be someone in FSF who is a musician who can add a melody to that chant
>>73
Where is your video production? Why don't you make one since your are so talented and all. There is nothing stopping you from making and recording a better performance.
>>74
you have 2 choices:
a) find a programmer who is also a musician, Alan Kay is the only one I know of
b) pay a professional musician to write a backup melody to the lyrics. Im sure you wont have anything against buying original music as music publishing is open source, you have the freedom to study and modify the notes that are copyrighted.
But you're all failures for not knowing it's to the tune of Sadi Moma and already has a melody and countermelody.
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-29 22:14
>>70
We've said it once, and we've repeated it a million times since the 1980's; we define freedom from the users' point of view. The freedoms that we've defined permit users to live a sovereign life; users should have control over one's own computers (freedom 0 and freedom 1). The freedoms that we've defined permit users to live as moral citizens of society; users should be permitted to share software (freedom 2) and contribute to their communities (freedom 3). I will repeat it once more: we define freedom from the users' point of view.
We don't really care what a software developer (or software publisher) does with software they write as long as those actions do not infringe on the USER freedom.
>>80
Yes, continue with your circular definitions. I've heard GNU is famous for those.
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-29 22:33
Correct; it does, however, enforce rather viral restrictions on distribution, restrictions which make code under the GPL rather useless for companies whose business model depends on the distribution/installation of software.
Not quite. This is related to the misunderstanding I pointed out earlier, "to convey GPL derived software, the derivative must be GPL compatible". There is nothing viral about the GPL, people convey GPL derived software under the GPL because they desire to do it. This compatibility requirement directly conflicts with business models that depend upon control over artificial scarcity of software; they are not permitted to convey GPL derivative software AND attach their conditions that convey artificial scarce control over that derivate.
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-29 22:36
>>82
Please enlighten me. Would you lay out point by point, how these definitions/arguments are circular?
we define freedom from the users' point of view. The freedoms that we've defined permit users to live a sovereign life
and users should have control over one's own computers (freedom 0 and freedom 1)
and especially The freedoms that we've defined permit users to live as moral citizens of society
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-30 23:24
>>87
That's your idea of circular reasoning? I'm not convinced. I'd classify that as asserting the premises which is, "to take something as preexisting and given". This isn't the same as circular reasoning in which, "a premise is supported with a premise rather than a conclusion". In the examples you've pointed out, I have not demonstrated the validity of the premises, I had declared them as being conclusions.
Just to demonstrate that my assertions are not circular arguments, I will present the three examples you've pointed out as real circular arguments.
Assertion: we define freedom from the users' point of view. The freedoms that we've defined permit users to live a sovereign life
Circular argument: users live a sovereign life because of the freedoms we've defined from the users' point of view.
Assertion: users should have control over one's own computers (freedom 0 and freedom 1)
Circular argument: users have control over one's own computer because of freedom 0 and freedom 1
Assertion: The freedoms that we've defined permit users to live as moral citizens of society
Circular argument: The freedoms we've defined show that users live as moral citizens of society.
>>91
What constitutes "tasteless"? I think it conveys its purpose very clearly and effectively. And why should you need "legal protection"?
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-31 13:09
>>92
GNU/Jews require the protection, so nobody (except themselves) are allowed to make much JEWGOLD with it.
Hence the other names for the GNU/GPL:
* The Jewish Advocats 'Favourite'
* MoneyMaker License
* "You ain't gon' get rich, bro!"-License
* The Thorn in your eye
* FlowerPower'd License
* "Lemme borrow your Technology"-License
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-31 14:05
So, what happens if I don't choose a license?
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-31 14:43
>>94
You implicitly reserve all rights as per the Berne Convention.
this is a really good thread, and I thoroughly appreciate the in-depth arguments in it. they are enterprise class.
my user perspective on the GPL is this:
if i need to find a program to do something specific, especially on a microsoft OS, i will search for ``dosomething program +gpl''
And 95% of the time I find good results, and get the application I was looking for. Exception: VLC.