Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 01:09:11 +0400 From: =?UTF-8?B?0JXQstCz0LXQvdC40Lkg0JvQsNC60YLQsNC90L7Qsg==?= <root1101@gmail.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why Clang Message-ID: <4FE0EA77.2010408@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20120619225013.2513e8bd.freebsd@edvax.de> References: <20120619205225.21d6709f.freebsd@edvax.de> <20f61898ce668c96f8882981cf8e24f6@remailer.privacy.at> <20120619225013.2513e8bd.freebsd@edvax.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4FE0EA77.2010408>