Slashdot Mirror
2 RMS Books Hit Version 2.0
jrepin writes "The Free Software Foundation (FSF) has just released in tandem the second edition of its president and founder Richard Stallman's selected essays, Free Software, Free Society, and his semi-autobiography, Free as in Freedom: Richard Stallman and the Free Software Revolution."
What's up with that? You'd think the text would be available free online.
The Prophet (the Source Be with Him) is needing some benjamins?
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
Where are the free PDF versions? Aren't these books open? ;-)
It's only restricting your freedom if you want to restrict the users' freedoms. Somehow people have this funny belief that if you take someone else's code, you should give back to the community that you took it from. Weird, huh?
You just go on thinking of what's best for *you*. I'll continue thinking of what's best for many.
STFU. Loser.
I'm tired of this sad trolling. GPL advocates never complain about the BSD license. It's only BSD advocates that complain about the GPL. You know what? Just because you want to use other people's code without having to respect their conditions doesn't give you the grounds to demean the GPL, dude.
The PDF's don't seem free, merely anonymous cash is OK so we won't do kindle.
From TFA:
These books will be available electronically as PDFs but will notably not be distributed in the Amazon Kindle format or for any other proprietary ebook reading platform, because of the Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) those systems impose on users. "This malicious device," says Stallman, "is designed to attack the traditional freedoms of readers: There's the freedom to acquire a book anonymously, paying cash — impossible with the Kindle for all well-known recent books. There's the freedom to give, lend, or sell a book to anyone you wish — blocked by DRM and unjust licenses. Then there's the freedom to keep a book — denied by a back door for remote deletion of books."
Troll. If you think that a license does not suit you, do not use it, use another one. Nobody is taking away your freedom as a developer to choose the license you prefer, or to write your own implementation. But as a developer myself, I don't see why you should benefit from my code, my hard work and my creativeness, close-source it, and invest maybe some marketing resources in it to drive me out of the market.
Fantasy? No. Personal experience. A loss of several thousands of euro from my part. So, keep your BSD license, I'll keep my GPL, thanks.
42.
Actually, that's perfectly rational thinking. Evolution, the whole of biology, and even economics is based on just that notion: the fuck do I care what happens to you as long as it increases my chances of survival/my fitness/my happiness. Being altruistic is by definition a losing move in any game, which is why altruists always make sure their altruism benefits them the most.
Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
And some people have this funny belief that true freedom applies to everybody. If I write code under a free license then everyone should be free to do with it as they will, no restrictions. Otherwise it isn't free: in "protection from" Vs. "freedom to" the freer one is the one with the word "free" in it. Doesn't seem so hard to understand to me.
I'm tired of this sad trolling. GPL advocates never complain about the BSD license. It's only BSD advocates that complain about the GPL. You know what? Just because you want to use other people's code without having to respect their conditions doesn't give you the grounds to demean the GPL, dude.
Actually some GPL types don't respect the wishes of others as well, or possibly legal obligations.
Regarding the actions by some GPL types who take dual licensed code and remove the non-GPL license in an attempt to make the code GPL only:
http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/openbsd-misc/2007/9/1/153822
You are also not free to sell yourself into slavery, but you don't complain about that lack of freedom. Your freedom as a developer only extends the where a user's freedom begins. If you want to close up source, then use your own code. Nobody is forcing the GPL on you.
With BSD, the source code remains free only as long as interest in the source code itself is retained. If interest in the source code dies out and the project is distributed only in binary form for a while, it may become impossible to obtain the source code at a later time, and future developers would no longer have the freedom to make changes to it as readily.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I think RMS would say that wanting the freedom to offer others the opportunity to waive their freedoms is antisocial.
Free as in perpetual state of war between individuals, because a set a of laws that does not give the bully the right to kill at will is not equal to freedom.
Or, to put it simpler, restricting some freedoms might be necessary to ensure others. Right to swing a fist, right to keep people from knowing what their computer is doing, etc.
IAIFARSIJDPOOTV - I Am In Fact A Reality Star; I Just Don't Play One On TV
I'd like a textual diff between the first and second editions. Any ideas on how to get/make them?
Enough with the natty penguins and the wishy-washy "open source" pragmatism. We want the angry, righteous, jealous old testament god of Free Software.
And receive a free BAR OF SOAP.
Did you know that scientific studies prove closed-source developers have more sex than GPL developers?
Special offer, order today! And receive a free BAR OF SOAP.
Actually a charitable contribution would be better. Order today and we will donate a bar of soap to a hacker in your name.
I'm wondering what the second edition adds or modifies. It would be hard to top the first one for incisiveness and succinctness.
And, as I've pointed out earlier... Much as I'd rather live in a country with a constitution than without one, so I'd rather release my works under the GPL than not. The GPL is the constitution that works towards my continued freedom as both an end-user and a developer. The BSD license is the license that allows other people to undermine and eventually destroy my freedom by building proprietary programs on top of mine that have a chance of eventually receiving all the time and attention of the world at large and thereby effectively destroying my freedom.
Network effects are the single most important factor in the economics of software development. A proprietary program that garners the time and attention of the world encourages the creation of other programs compatible with it, and not a free alternative, even if the proprietary program stemmed from that free alternative. Software is rendered obsolete by no longer functionally participating in the networked ecosystem of software. My 'free' program licensed under an excessively permissive license can be rendered useless by the existence of a proprietary program that was ultimately derived from the free program.
My continued freedom as a developer requires that I choose a license like the GPL.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
That's your choice, but I don't think that the FSF will close source on you.
You know, that could just be because people who use the GPL can freely use any BSD code they want, but people who want to use the BSD license are blocked from using GPL code.
These were typeset with the FREE TeX and uses the FREE Computer Modern Roman fonts. The previous edition was typeset with FrameMaker and uses Adobe's Sabon fonts.
I had a free (as in torrent) copy of the previous version, but I couldn't read it knowing that it had been typeset with non-FREE software.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Somehow people have this funny belief that if you take someone else's code, you should give back to the community that you took it from.
And this is exactly what makes GPL non-free. It's a great moral to live by, and I fully support it's use, but it's not freedom. Freedom involves letting people chose for themselves.
Did you know that scientific studies prove that BSDed code is closed-source. Wait no... that's not right.
Closed source advocates never complain about the GPL, it's only GPL advocates that complain about closed source ;)
Okay, that's fine – don't give your code away for free, use the GPL... But don't claim you're protecting freedom when you're doing it.
You're 100 percent right, of course, but because people would rather reflexively defend what they already believe in -- which is their beloved, but restrictive GPL -- you will be attacked. It's not trolling (as you're currently modded as I write this) to say that the GPL has the effect of forcing everyone else to behave with code as the license's authors want. The BSD is neutral on the matter and allows everyone to do whatever THEY want with code. The fact that the "free software" advocates can't understand that they are trying to control others is one of the supreme ironies in IT today.
Can I fork his books?
Right, it's much better for those other people to simply not work on your code. GPL: more freedom through fewer choices.
I agree completely. But to add to the discussion, I would like to note that if you want to put emphasis on continued freedom, then you should not just license under the GPL, but under GPL vN or any later version, and increment the N as new versions appear. Otherwise, as in the case of Linux, once new legal loopholes arise, allowing a licensee to bypass the four freedoms, your current GPL license will not offer protection against them.
That's your choice, but I don't think that the FSF will close source on you.
I want to warn you that you are probably wasting your time, unless of course your goal was to demonstrate how unreasonable people can be.
This is like far too many arguments over what approach should be taken or what people should do for what amount to personal decisions. The people arguing against you in this thread are like little lemmings marching in lock-step to the beat of a general failed sentiment: it's never good enough for them to use what they believe in, and to not use what they don't believe in, because by God the other guy has to be converted too.
Insecure people just cannot stand the idea that others might have different needs, philosophies, tastes, and preferences and that these may lead to different decisions. They feel threatened by that, like their own preference loses legitimacy each time someone else doesn't share it. That's why I call them lemmings, for this is a rejection of individuality.
No one is going to force them to use GPL software. That isn't good enough. They don't want to use GPL software; therefore the very existence of GPL software bothers them. Other developers have decided, of their own free will, to use the GPL as a license for their software. This is software that no one has to use. The fact that someone somewhere might use it bothers them.
They can disguise their insecurity by saying "but the GPL has this-and-that" but it's all bullshit. I suspect they're trying to convince themselves that their insistence is valid and amounts to anything other than a religious intolerance. No one has to use the GPL. I personally think the GPL is a great license and maximizes everyone's freedom as much as is practical and sustainable, but let's say someone doesn't think so. Then their concerns for the GPL's impact on freedom are 100% mitigated by their total freedom to not use it. What, then, would be the complaint? What injustice has been perpetrated? Absolutely none, they just want to bitch about how terrible it is that the entire world doesn't just see everything their way.
That's what you are dealing with here. You can demonstrate how absurd it is but you are unlikely to change it.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
a) That's not true at all.
b) Even if it was true, that would only apply if you were using one of the FSF's licences, but the GP was about how no-one's forcing you to use the FSF's licences in the first place.
The colophon claims the latex files are available on /faif, but I didn't see them.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
There are legitimate complaints against the GPL. The most notable one is you can't make money from modifying or using the software if everyone can copy it for free. It's good for school projects and vendors who sell "support" but for actual software developers who want to make a living writing software it's not the best license to use. Does that make it less free? You make the call.
... The GPL is the constitution that works towards my continued freedom as both an end-user and a developer. The BSD license is the license that allows other people to undermine and eventually destroy my freedom by building proprietary programs on top of mine that have a chance of eventually receiving all the time and attention of the world at large and thereby effectively destroying my freedom ...
No. The BSD type licenses take nothing away from your freedom. You have your source, you can do whatever you want with it. Your network effect argument fails in two ways. First, you *assume* that your software would have become popular like the fork did. Your version, GPL'd or unforked BSD may have never caught on. The real work, the popular work, may have been the proprietary work. For example Apple's cocoa user interface code as opposed to the underlying freebsd code. You work may be the lesser replaceable part of the overall effort. Secondly, the network effect takes nothing away from you. For example linux works regardless of how many copies of ms windows are sold, and people are free to use and contribute to freebsd regardless of how many people use mac os x. There is no evidence to suggest that mac os x has diminished interest in or contributions to freebsd, quite the contrary actually. Mac os x elevated the awareness of and confidence in freebsd.
Please use the GPL all you care to, that is of course your right. However don't attempt the farcical arguments to deny the greater freedom of the BSD path and the greater charity of the BSD devs. Rather accept the reality of the restrictions of the GPL and argue that their altruistic nature justifies them.
I love how you think that everything has to turn a profit. Your whole premise is false, since there are plenty of companies making millions from such software. Still, the belief that everything is made to be consumed and paid for is idiotic, especially in the world of software. Software can still be had for free, even if it is proprietary software. They call this piracy, yet no amount of DRM works and people still pay for things. I suspect that if everything was free software, your average guy would still pay for the software and the support, while large corporations would have to hire someone to maintain their stuff anyways. Software that is meant to be free should be extended to everyone, including the people who can't pay. I thought the point of markets was to meet human need, not the other way around.
Someone to whom I would give credit if I could remember his/her name suggested that the opposite of free software is enslaved software. In this view, it is the software and not the user or developer whose freedom is guaranteed by the GPL.
Pretty sure that's not what rms meant to say, but an interesting perspective nonetheless.
I'm tired of this sad trolling.
Then why are you on /. ?
GPL advocates never complain about the BSD license. It's only BSD advocates that complain about the GPL.
The GPL advocates are definitely more subtle about it -- they usually don't stage frontal assaults on BSD. They don't have to. GPL advocates have successfully created an environment where their concept of "freedom" is widely taken to be the one and only true definition. Any attempt by BSD advocates to challenge the GPL definition of freedom is seen as trolling. Like many "hot button" social issues, it's difficult to have a reasoned discussion, and even when you do, few minds are ever changed.
Just because you want to use other people's code without having to respect their conditions doesn't give you the grounds to demean the GPL, dude.
I believe free software (whether as in speech or beer) is a gift, and the person giving the gift has an absolute right to impose whatever conditions they want on recipients. People who can't/won't accept the conditions must decline the gift. Taking the gift and not abiding by the conditions is not a morally acceptable alternative.
I also believe that giving gifts doesn't create immunity from criticism. People who don't like the conditions attached to a gift have an absolute right to complain. If enough people agree that the conditions are unreasonable, pressure from the community may convince the giver to modify their terms. If few people agree, pressure from the community may convince the complainer to sit down and shut up.
The key sequence to access my Slashdot bookmark in Firefox is Alt-B-S. I don't believe this is a coincidence.
Search GNU
Replace \textsc{gnu}
Would look so much better....
The most notable one is you can't make money from modifying
Wrong. I have friend who own a company which makes money by taking GPL licensed code and adapting to a specific business needs. How is that not making money from modifying it?
Dilbert RSS feed
User freedom is valued more then distributor freedom with the GPL, that doesn't make it non-free any more then valuing people's freedom not to fight vs to fight in law makes us non-free.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
and you will receive free pubic hairs from the man himself, but only with the first 100 copies.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
By that logic no group respects anything since you could find at least one instance where a member of a group doesn't...
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
So whining about people exercising the particular freedom they deem so important?
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
With no exception, ALL of the major groundbreakers in the history of societal freedoms and liberties, were considered fringe and even prosecuted in their time.
Today, thankfully, we dont have much prosecution. but labeling, despising, outcasting pioneers continue.
Stallman is no different. what he is bringing forth will underlie the basis of the society tomorrow.
Read radical news here
The definition includes the BSD license. It is even recommended in cases where broad penetration is desired. It just that the definition does not require an adaptable license.
Since there isn't a "GPL definition of freedom" this isn't unreasonable. I suspect this is because the four freedoms as defined by the FSF are pretty damn reasonable, just the particular implementation with persistence is seen as a problem (even though it allows all of the freedoms as defined).
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
First, you *assume* that your software would have become popular like the fork did. Your version, GPL'd or unforked BSD may have never caught on
No, he assumes works derived from his work would have become popular. His GPL'd work may have never caught on, but maybe someone else's GPL'd fork would have. The forked popular version benefitted from the unforked one, otherwise it would never have been based on it. But in the GPL scenario, both contributing parties benefit from the popularity. Follow the BSD path and only one would have. It's like if someone else patents an idea you developed before you had a chance to, and now you never get to benefit when the idea takes off.
You work may be the lesser replaceable part of the overall effort.
If it's not an important part, why are they using your work? On the other hand, if you realize your work wouldn't be a huge part of a larger application but you still don't want people to re-invent the wheel, you can still do the pragmatic thing and simply use the LGPL license.
For example linux works regardless of how many copies of ms windows are sold,
Linux and Windows are developed independently, which is a different argument than freebsd and OS X since they actually share a common base.
and people are free to use and contribute to freebsd regardless of how many people use mac os x
But if OS X works fine, why even bother with freebsd? If BSD was under the GPL license, or parts were LGPL, then freebsd would receive as many contributions as the part of OS X that freebsd is based on. As it is now, freebsd and OS X become fragmented, and some fixes in one aren't present in the other.
Charity is fine but if you want to help everyone, teach a man to fish instead of just giving him fish, he might even be able to improve fishing techniques and pass them on so that we can all fish better.
Twinstiq, game news
By that logic no group respects anything since you could find at least one instance where a member of a group doesn't...
No, that's a quite erroneous interpretation.
He's protecting the freedom of the software... that's why it's called free SOFTWARE.
Sorry, misread. I still fail to see what the argument is. Some people do things wrongly, what is the relevance to the group?
OTOH if BSD-only advocates would stop spreading half-truths (to be generous) like "free for any purpose, unlike the GPL" if they want to see fewer incidents of this nature. Your license has restrictions as well, get off the ideological high-horse.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Again in English?
BSD advocates are doing exactly what GPL advocates do: complaining about less-permissive licensing schemes.
GPL supporters regularly and loudly complain about less-permissive licensing schemes (see: Apple's iOS App Store, Microsoft, any other company that has not embraced the One True Way).
The attitude seems to be, "Everybody who is less permissive than us sucks because we can't use their shit, but anybody who's more permissive than us? Oh well, thanks for the code, LOL!" I have no sympathy for GPL advocates on this score, and it's not trolling. If the end-user's freedom is what the GPL is all about, shouldn't GPL advocates be criticizing BSD and other permissive licenses for not defending the same freedoms they criticize closed source software for not defending?
I'd think that GPL advocates, given their stated ideals of preserving "user freedom" as a valuable societal resource, would stick to their stated principles in all cases, but it seems like they're willing to throw out the whole "end-user freedom" thing as long as they can still see the source code and use it.
Some BSD-only advocates seem to have a problem with their code being incorporated into particularly licensed (GPL) products. Their main criticism against this practice is that it prevents it's inclusion in software with more restricted licensing. I.e. they believe that the ability of being incorporated into more restrictive software is very important to this group, yet they complain when people they don't agree with do it.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
I see merits to both sides, but I at least have to point out some flaws in your argument (which may allow you to strengthen it and we could both benefit, unless you want to keep any insight to yourself of course, that is your right).
In the spirit of BSD I will share my "insights" with all, both those who share my philosophical beliefs and those who do not. ;-)
First, you *assume* that your software would have become popular like the fork did. Your version, GPL'd or unforked BSD may have never caught on
No, he assumes works derived from his work would have become popular ...
Which is exactly what I meant by "unforked BSD". Again, that is a quite gratuitous assumption, quite the boot strapping.
... His GPL'd work may have never caught on, but maybe someone else's GPL'd fork would have. The forked popular version benefitted from the unforked one, otherwise it would never have been based on it. But in the GPL scenario, both contributing parties benefit from the popularity. Follow the BSD path and only one would have.
However the real point remains, no one is deprived of the benefits of the original work, as the OP was suggesting. As in FreeBSD users and developers are not deprived of their work by Apple's success with Mac OS X. They actually come out ahead given the increased aware of and confidence in FreeBSD.
You work may be the lesser replaceable part of the overall effort.
If it's not an important part, why are they using your work? ...
Irrelevant. It may simply be a convenience. Just because a convenience can be forgone does not mean it should be.
... On the other hand, if you realize your work wouldn't be a huge part of a larger application but you still don't want people to re-invent the wheel, you can still do the pragmatic thing and simply use the LGPL license.
That seems more like a minor concession. To be truly pragmatic would be to set aside one's personal agenda in order to achieve a universal audience.
For example linux works regardless of how many copies of ms windows are sold,
Linux and Windows are developed independently, which is a different argument than freebsd and OS X since they actually share a common base.
You are missing the point. A proprietary solution, or a network effect, does not diminish the value of the FOSS solution. Ie nothing is taken away from Linux users. They are perfectly able to continue on doing their own thing.
and people are free to use and contribute to freebsd regardless of how many people use mac os x
But if OS X works fine, why even bother with freebsd?
Again, convenience. Apple looked at Linux to the extent that it was used/supported by Apple in the early days for PowerPC hardware, before OS X's launch. Since they had experience with both, they could have gone either way. They also had experience developing their own replacement to the classic Mac OS line, the name of the project escapes me at the moment. There was also the option of buying BeOS rather than NextStep. The BSD path must have offered some greater convenience.
And if this were true, how does this undermines my point that FreeBSD users and developers have lost nothing by going the BSD route? You are saying there are no additional contributions in the GPL scenario.
What has the licence to do with your problem?
You release your application under GPL. I have better ideas than you on how to improve it. I hire more and better people than you have, fork your app and release it under GPL.
It's all GPL. Still I sent you down the toilet and everyone switched to my app.
There are legitimate complaints against the GPL. The most notable one is you can't make money from modifying or using someone else's software if everyone can copy it for free. It's good for school projects and vendors who sell "support" but for actual software developers who want to make a living writing software it's not the best license to use. Does that make it less free? You make the call.
FTFY
Actually, that's perfectly rational thinking. Evolution, the whole of biology, and even economics is based on just that notion: the fuck do I care what happens to you as long as it increases my chances of survival/my fitness/my happiness. Being altruistic is by definition a losing move in any game, which is why altruists always make sure their altruism benefits them the most.
Except that you are totally wrong
Of course you know that the FSF has no problem with selling software - it is all about "free as in speech" and not about "free as in beer".
Of course. I just thought it was amusing that they were not prominently displaying where to find the free PDFs as they want software publishers to prominently display where to find the source code. I guess to carry the joke further I should ask if the books code with a CD with the LaTex files? ;-)
Not true at all
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
"because by God the other guy has to be converted too."
You've put a couple years of metaphysics study into this post . . .
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
"want to make a living writing software"
I want a damned pegasus, but I've never seen one. I want my own Abrams tank, too. And, a Landrover fitted as an APC. A person can "want" all they care to, that doesn't "entitle" them. And, that's what your post boils down to. "I should be ENTITLED to sit around playing with code, and be given the best that the world has to offer for my efforts!"
There's not much of a call to make. In general (but not in all cases) people who oppose the GPL think that they are special, and ONLY THEY should be permitted to work with their code. It's up to you - use GPL, or find some pretty BSD'd code to play with. Rules are, if you play in the GPL toybox, you have to share with all the other kids.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
I didn't say everything has to turn a profit. I just said you couldn't earn a profit by using GPL software, which is also the main complaint against using GPL software. It's a good license for academics. It's not a good license for earning a living.
Yeah it applies to the FSF license and no, nobody is forcing you to use it just like no one is forcing you to cut off your toes. But that doesn't make either idea good.
I didn't say everything has to turn a profit. I just said you couldn't earn a profit by using GPL software, which is also the main complaint against using GPL software. It's a good license for academics. It's not a good license for earning a living.
The existence of GPL software has not put Microsoft and other software companies out of business. If it had, I would consider your point valid though I'd still disagree with the premise that there's anything wrong with free software.
You still refuse to address this one point though. You say "[the GPL is] not a good license for earning a living." Okay. If you think so, then the next time you write software, release it under a commercial license. Problem solved. Again, where is the complaint? I want to see your answer to this, though if you suddenly go silent (like you did when you chose not to reply to this post) the reason will be easy to discern.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Not true. Anyone is free to write code, license it under the GPL, the LGPL, or the AGLP, and retain copyright.
And it's GNU/RMS, you insensitive clod!
How is something that is this blatantly false (as evidenced by my sibling poster's link) get modded up? Wow.
You are also not free to sell yourself into slavery, but you don't complain about that lack of freedom.
Don't be so idiotic as to equate slavery to the ability to add proprietary modifications to existing open source code. Moreover it's not as though it changes the freedom of the original source code in any way. GPL is an effort to control all derived works, that is not freedom.
where is the complaint?
if it truly were a 'it's up to you' scenario there would be no complaint, but of course it isn't, you get FSF reps protesting at companies' events (like ATi's) trying to push them into doing things the FSF's way, they don't have a 'it's up to you' outlook at all.
OTOH if BSD-only advocates would stop spreading half-truths (to be generous) like "free for any purpose, unlike the GPL" if they want to see fewer incidents of this nature.
Wait, you're trying to tell me that the people that perpetrate such incidents (attempting to hijack code to make it GPL only) aren't responsible for their own actions, or even that the BSD advocates bear any responsibility for making such people make bad decisions? If so, you've lost all credibility, and I'll just go ahead and ignore you from here on out.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
Or it could be, you know, a mistake... People mess up with licenses all the time, if they correct it and don't repeat the same mistake twice I generally don't tend to paint it as malice. Clearly you seem to have different standards.
People who are legal experts interpreting a license in the light that most of the community advocating it paint in? They aren't just wrong, they are Hitler!
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
That would be "aren't legal experts of course".
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
The only complaint is some people call GPL free. Other than that there's nothing to complain about.
I'm not seeing the point of putting both licenses on the same code. They don't seem compatible like that. With one license you achieve a stock of code that moves in an out of proprietary and sharable. The other license keeps the code forever sharable/modifiable with no exception. I can't see a way to make them work in tangent unless the code only follows gpl rules, and then the bsd license becomes redundant for that segment of code.
Can someone please enlighten me as to the point of this?
No, no, no... I'm not addressing that possibility at all. I was specifically addressing your assertion that if only BSD advocates would stop doing [insert whatever here], then we'd see fewer incidents where people do the sort of thing perpenso was describing. So please address that point, specifically your apparent view that people aren't responsible for their own actions.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
Come read about his friend, the goat.
http://goo.gl/M2lUZ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_license
What ever happened to those wireless drivers again? I think OpenBSD wrote it, and it's BSD, and the Linux Wireless folks took it (at OpenBSD's urging) then promptly removed the BSD license and slapped on GPL licenses.
So now, the authors can't take back patches.
Not that it really matters. I've seen an alarming number of companies start having to set up "Open Source Licensing" processes to ensure they can comply with licenses like the GPLv3 - and start requiring this process for every piece of open-source software - whether it's for internal use only, or to be used with the product.
And previously these processes were only for commercially-licensed software.
The BSD is neutral on the matter and allows everyone to do whatever THEY want with code.
No it doesn't. I would for example like to put it under the GPL, but the license forbids me from doing that. I'd also like to claim it as my own work, but you don't allow that either.
All of you BSD=true freedom people should eat your own dogfood and put your work under the public domain if it's true freedom you're after. Until you do you need to realise that you only like a different set of restrictions than those of us that prefer the GPL. Which we incidentally thinks promotes more freedom than your particular set of restrictions.
Stefan Axelsson
I'm pretty sure that the violation got fixed and some developers learned that the BSD comes with more strings for people distributing source then people who only distribute binaries. Why?
That is certainly better then the ad-hock we have seen before. It's probably more the general maturing of FLOSS then the GPLv3 which only gets somewhat complicated if you do signed binaries or are in the business of software patent licensing, otherwise it is actually simpler then v2, you can just point upstream for the source (or don't remove the mechanism for fetching the webapp).
Depending on the process it might make it easier for the company to contribute back to BSD-style licensed products as well. After all, without a process in place developers might not have even been inclined to even bring the possibility up. If so, that is certainly a net win for us all.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Better awareness of potential licensing issues is quite likely to reduce the amount of mistakes. It took a while before the repeated "if you use GPL code you need to distribute the source" to really sink in. As it stands what we mostly hear about the BSD license is "not like the GPL", "GPL compatible" and "free to redistribute under more restrictive terms". I can certainly see where the confusion over how exactly to incorporate BSD licensed code into other source-distributed projects can arise.
The counterintuitive aspect of placing more restrictions on distributed-with-source then on distributed-binary-only really needs to be brought up along with those three.
Specifically, I didn't make that point, just that greater awareness of the finer points of the BSD licenses would help avoid honest mistakes. I believe that assigning blame is such situations is a waste of energy.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
If they have a problem with people exercising the freedoms they granted them, why did they give that freedom in the first place?
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
You want to release some software under BSD, go right ahead but don't bitch about what others are doing. Since GPL is more popular is seems like you're on the losing side, so sorry about that.
Funny, I find the same logic follows for a lot of GPL zealots.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
This just tangential related but ...
What are some of the strategies other slashdotters use to get PDFs onto a Kindle (besides using it in straight PDF format)?
For me, I had a code heavy book that I wanted to convert to make in more native, less having to zoom and such. I've tried Calibre (I was already using if for my digital books), however the conversion took FOREVER. And, that was after turning off a lot of the chapter stuff and the result wasn't that good. I ended up using Adobe Creator to export doc or html (sorry, forgot :), then using Calibre. Even then, it was just acceptable not superb.
Atlas Shrugged : Thematic Story
Freedom does not apply to inanimate objects or concepts. Only sentient beings can have freedom. For example, I have the freedom to tell you to shove that FREE SOFTWARE straight up your fucking ass. Don't you EVER tell me what software is or isn't good for me or anyone else, asshole.
Since GPL is more popular is seems like you're on the losing side, so sorry about that.
That's a cocksuckers argument. Christianity is also more popular but that doesn't make it the "winning side". Open a history book, you ignorant ass, and you'll find stupidity is popular worldwide. Troll on, DingBoi.
Why?
ebooks are not going away, and just because Kindle/Amazon may impose DRM doesn't mean you cannot still release this as an ebook and take advantage of that format.
PDFs are atrocious to read on anything other than a large screen. Yes I can technically read a PDF on an ebook but I cannot *easily* read this.
DRM != sticking with shit and using inappropriate technology.
He could have just given us a damn txt file Hell I'd take the *texi files - anything but a bloody PDF.
Funny, I find the same logic follows for a lot of [insert any term here] zealots.
Fixed that for you.
Or did you think I defended and excused this behavior when it happens to be done by people who agree with me? Zealots who otherwise agree with me only make my position look less reasonable so it's actually worse in that case. This is so hard to understand that by default you would assume the opposite?
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
How does your clarification imply more freedom? I have nothing against people claiming the software they write is theirs. I do have a complaint against people who write software, say it's theirs and also claim it's freedom while distributing it with a restrictive license. It's the hypocrisy that bothers me, not the license.