Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 22:50:13 +0200 From: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> To: "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixmaster@remailer.privacy.at> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why Clang Message-ID: <20120619225013.2513e8bd.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: <20f61898ce668c96f8882981cf8e24f6@remailer.privacy.at> References: <20120619205225.21d6709f.freebsd@edvax.de> <20f61898ce668c96f8882981cf8e24f6@remailer.privacy.at>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120619225013.2513e8bd.freebsd>