root1101 at gmail.com
Tue Jun 19 21:08:01 UTC 2012
20.06.2012 00:50, Polytropon пишет:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 22:06:49 +0200 (CEST), Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
>>> GPL protects the freedom of the programmer who licensed his
>>> code under those licenses: He wants it to be free for use,
>>> but not to be turned into closed source products.
>> What a lying sonofabitch.
> By insulting you think your arguments get any better? Sorry,
> it's not the case.
>> That is not called freedom. That is called
>> "forcible, viral open source".
> That's what I initially called "viral license" (or which, to
> be precise, is a phrase someone else invented, and which I
> just repeated).
> A developer is always the key person to decide what he will
> do with his source code. Giving it for free WITH NO SPECIAL
> RESTRICTIONS is a very generous act. (Note that this act does
> not mean he gives up copyright, the attribution that _he_ was
> the creator of the code!)
> If a developer wants to donate his work to the public, but does
> not want others to make money with his work, he will probably
> choose the GPL to release the source code. Others are allowed
> to modify it, to create derivate works and even use it in their
> products, as long as the requirement (which you may validly see
> as a restriction!) of "contribution back" is met.
> A much more strict requirement seems to be in the GPLv3 which
> limits those who "take" the open source. The "aspect of being
> viral" includes that the source will not be turned into closed
> source. The most negative effect is that GPLv3 licensed components
> may have side effects of non-GLPv3 licensed code. This is something
> worth seeing critically.
>> I think we can all see the difference. Open
>> your motherfucking eyes, communist goofball...
> All those insults fly back to you and therefore apply to you.
> It makes all your argumentation (which may be valid) futile.
> In fact, that kind of acting is a typical means of communist
> dictatures - using insulting language to actually avoid any
> discussion and instead strengthen the means of oppression!
> You should learn some history. And maybe calm down, as the
> hatred you're spreading is really unpleasant.
>>> A programmer who does not want to raise this barrier will
>>> typically use the BSD license which is "more free".
>> No, it's just plain "free."
> Among the many licenses, the BSD license seems to be the most
> free license (or, the "only free license", which is a valid
> point of view), as it explicitely allows things that the GPL
> does not.
> Of course, there are different interpretations if this is a
> good or a bad thing. For a system like FreeBSD that wants to
> offer a free system (in the widest sense), GPLv3 system
> components (such as compilers) could be a no-go.
>>> BSDL in opposite is often criticized a "rape me license".
>> No, it is not, except perhaps by lying atheist Marxist bastards and his
>> religious adherents.
> By "no, except" you have actually agreed that the statement is
> true, even if you tried to deny it. Again, please try to have
> some culture in discussion. Maybe you should also read Marx. :-)
>>> It explicitely (!) allows creating derivates in a closed
>>> source manner. This means that parts of BSD licensed code
>>> can be a key component in a proprietary closed source
>>> product that is for sale (e. g. a firewall appliance),
>>> and nobody will find out about that fact.
>> Now you got it! GPL is about forcing people to do what /you/ want and BSD is
>> about letting them do what /they/ want.
> Licensing is about choosing - a main criteria of a free society.
> A developer is free to even keep his sources closed, to release
> them as GPL v2 or v3, or as BSDL (or choose from other licenses,
> or even write his own).
> In the next step, licenses have impact on how sources can be used.
> As I did explain, GPLv3 code may be problematic in this regards in
> certain environments. It may perfectly fit in others. As long as
> there's an agreement of the users of such source to accept the
> license, it's okay.
> What's _not_ okay is when the license forces you to do something
> you don't want to do, or simply can't do.
>> Let's see if you can guess which one
>> of those licenses is about freedom. Hint: freedom is not defined as forcing
>> people to do what you want.
> If people don't do what I want, they're limiting my freedom. :-)
> Seriously, you should pay more attention to what I wrote. Even
> though English is not my native language, I try to be as precise
> as possible, and if I can't do that (because a lack of knowledge,
> because of assumptions or deduction), I make clear that it is not
> the case. Hint: Read carefully: "I think", "as far as I know" or
> similar formulas are an indicator.
> Finally: Insulting me is not a way to go. It shows that you don't
> value the freedom of speech. Of course you are free to say whatever
> you want. But as soon as you insult people and limit their freedom,
> maybe even their right (moral right, not law) to have a polite and
> normal discussion on this list, you're not any better than the
> communists you hate that much.
People like that have a very-very skewered views on freedom ... One can
say hypocritical and immature
More information about the freebsd-questions