GNU Sucks

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


Also, I'm a Linuxfag. Ubuntufag, to be precise.

>>80
Communism.

>>80
Yes, continue with your circular definitions. I've heard GNU is famous for those.

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.

>>82
Please enlighten me. Would you lay out point by point, how these definitions/arguments are circular?

Metacircular arguments.

Haxus the Metacircular Argument

>>84
Starting with:

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

>>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.

http://me.stpeter.im/essays/publicdomain.html

I like this.

>>89
The Do What The Fuck You Want Public License Version 2 (WTFPL) has a better name and is more concise.

>>90
Its name is tasteless and it provides you no legal protection whatsoever.

>>91
What constitutes "tasteless"? I think it conveys its purpose very clearly and effectively. And why should you need "legal protection"?

>>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

So, what happens if I don't choose a license?

>>94
You implicitly reserve all rights as per the Berne Convention.

intellectual property


what a farce

I am currently reading this book, which makes a pretty cogent attack on the idea of IP:

 http://www.amazon.com/Against-Intellectual-Monopoly-Michele-Boldrin/dp/0521127262/

Perhaps it will be of interest to other YHBT :).

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.

<-- check em dubz

<-- that's cool and all, but check my doubles over thereNewer Posts

---

Don't change these.

Name:		Email:
Entire Thread Thread List