perrin at apotheon.com
Wed Jun 20 03:08:55 UTC 2012
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:06:49PM +0200, 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. That is not called freedom. That is called
> "forcible, viral open source". I think we can all see the difference. Open
> your motherfucking eyes, communist goofball...
Give him a break. His heart is in the right place, though his choice of
phrasing may have been imperfect in this case. He was, it seems to me,
trying to take an even-handed approach to describing the positions of
both sides of a contentious matter, and letting the reader make up his or
her own mind about it. In fact, if there's any bias showing in what he
said, I think it leans toward copyfree licenses like the various BSD
licenses, rather than toward copyleft licenses such as the various GNU
There are better targets than Polytropon for your ire.
> > 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."
This would seem like a much more reasonable statement if it was not
preceded by your immediately prior invective.
> > 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.
Yes, it is often criticized that way -- by people who, in my considered
opinion, have their heads up their asses -- and the fact that Polytropon
pointed out this simple fact does not make him a bad person.
It's also worth noting that a lot of the people who make such ridiculous
comments about copyfree licenses are often not atheists, Marxists, or
bastards. They're often just nuts.
. . . and what's wrong with being an atheist? I'm not an atheist (more
of an agnostic Taoist), but if someone wants to believe he or she has
absolute knowledge of the (non-)existence of any god, that's his or her
prerogative. I would judge such a person no more harshly than a devoted
monotheist. Your beliefs are your own affair; only your behavior, as it
affects other people, is of particular concern to me. In the particular
venue of a FreeBSD mailing list, my interest narrows further to exclude
things that have nothing to do with FreeBSD and associated software,
community, and so on. I don't see how "atheist" is a meaningful insult,
especially when we're talking about software, or how it can be gleaned
from someone's licensing preferences.
> > 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. 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.
This would probably be a better-received statement if the rest of your
commentary in the same email was not mostly about (probably entirely
inaccurate) insults flung at someone for failing to use the specific
phrasing you prefer when referring to the crazies who believe using
software distributed under a copyfree license is an act of pure evil.
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
More information about the freebsd-questions