So if I would overtake some site (MITM, whatever) and issue my own self signed cert, shouldn't there be a warning that this certificate is unknown?
That's IMHO the real purpose of the self signed warnings.
Several years ago I worked at a german university where recognizing of human faces was researched. We also did 3D reconstruction of faces, which was useful for training some algorithms. Although the technique is very different, 3D reconstruction from 2D images is not that new. Some examples can still be seen here: link
in this case, since the rights granted by a licence correspond to the freedom to exercise those rights.
Just that this license restricts you and also all others which might use your work. It is just claimed that this leads to "more freedom" because bad people are restricted from doing bad things. But in the end everyone is forced to comply with the terms of this license. A license cannot grant any right that you do not already have. At least not if source code is publically released by the copyright owner. In this case it can only restrict what you can do with it, else it is public domain.
In real life, all freedom has boundaries, and any specific freedom is relative to something. We talk about "freedom of speech", but there are externally imposed restraints to that, such as restraints on threats, or incitements to riot, or yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.
Yes in real life freedom has boundaries, therefore you are not completely free. Freedom is a condition. And freedom also means that you can do things which do not seem right and which might have bad consequences for you. If you yell "fire" in a crowded place this is seriously wrong, _but_ if you cannot do it you would not be free.
And that is the problem of the FSF. They try to enforce goodness not freedom. But they do this by forcing other people to comply with their license because once you get caught by the GPL you may never leave. Only if you start from scratch, which is impossible in most situations (e.g. large software projects).
So it is perfectly valid for the FSF to describe the rights granted by the GPL as "freedoms". In terms of the definition of freedom, those rights give people the power to act on the source code of the programs they use without the severe externally imposed restraint of being denied access to the source code. The fact that other freedoms are withheld in order to achieve this freedom is inherent in the nature of freedom, as I pointed out in the grandparent comment.
No as I have said above, freedom is a condition. And this condition means to be not influencd by externally imposed restrains. Freedom also means that you can do wrong or that you allow other people to do wrong. And wrong is a very subjective term.
The FSF and also your usage of "freedoms" is somewhat technical. "One freedom, two freedoms, three freedoms, n freedoms, n+1 freedoms". Freedom cannot be counted, weighted. It is a condition, a rather simple one, which is I have to admit, hard to achieve.
of their programs, including withhold it from users. You cannot deny that this is withholding a freedom from users: again, freedoms are a tradeoff, and in this case granting a freedom to developers withholds it from users.
It might withhold it from users. A developer gives other developers the right to withhold it for various reasons. But the developer or user adopting the work of the original developer is free to choose what he wants to do. He is not forced to adopt the GPL and it's various restrictions.
And that is the problem that arises here. Now the GPL, constructed to benefit the open source community locks out a part of that community because it does not agree with it's conditions. This is just totalitarian.
Governments give them that right. They have the legal right to impose their idea of freedom on users of software licensed under the GPL. They have the legal right to license software under the GPL if the software being licensed does not already have a license which prevents that. So what's your point?
The point is that they try to enforce what they think is right through the viral nature of their license. They try to convince people that what they do is the right thing. But in the end if people do not follow their arguments they pull out their legal documents and force them to behave in a "good" way. Or at least to behave by their definition of good.
I think many confuse enforcing freedom with enforcing rights.
In a civilized society you have rights. For example the right to be physically and mentally unharmed or the right to speak freely. These rights are maintained. In my opinion the GPL does not enforce freedom. One may say it enforces certain rights. Like the right for everyone to adopt the work of others. This is not a bad thing. But to call it free is just not true and this is what I think is causing the harsh reactions of many BSD developers.
Wordnet defines freedom as "the condition of being free; the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints"
Wikipedia: "the condition of being free; the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints"
So basically freedom means you may do as you like without external restrictions hindering you. But the GPL is very restrictive in what you may do! It limits your actions, thus limiting your ability to do as you like, thus you are not free. Saying that this preserves the freedom of the others does not change the situation for you, as your freedom is still limited.
Forcing individuals to free the community is just not right and dangerous to do. Who gives the FSF the right to impose their idea of freedom to everyone else? This is not the idea of freedom or sharing, it is merely a way to pressure others into doing what you think is right.
Why is it then that Saddam had to be forcibly evicted? Are the wetern freedoms merely illusion?
No but this a good example what enforcing freedom does. People now live in fear of death more than ever, not knowing what the term freedom even means. Freedom is not something which can be declared. A state for example should protect it's citizens from harm because it has got legitimation from it's citizens to do so. But you surely agree that people should be allowed to leave, if they for some reason like it somewhere else better? I'm glad I don't live in a country which builds a wall around itself so the citizens don't leave. Now think about viral licenses.
If you are free to live as a free man, but you aren't protected from kidnap, does that mean living free is an illusion if force is used to prevent kidnap and make it real (though useless) if there is no force?
I surely wouldn't feel very good if I had to worship someone or some group or get else get kidnapped.;) But this comparison is flawed. Software cannot be kidnapped, because if you copy it, the original is still there. That is something completely different.
Oh, and to ask about your other point, how will I get the BSD'd code for Win9x/NT or is it closed by law? The point is that a company can choose to give me the code if it wants to. That's not the case for GPLed code, thus locking me out forever unless I adopt the GPL.
"Giving freedom" and taking it away from others does not sound quite right.
I think the whole point of enforcing freedom only leads to bad things. History shows that. Enforcing freedom is an oxymoron. If you enforce freedom it's not quite that free, is it?
Slashdot Mirror
So if I would overtake some site (MITM, whatever) and issue my own self signed cert, shouldn't there be a warning that this certificate is unknown? That's IMHO the real purpose of the self signed warnings.
Just disable "Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought" for them.
Several years ago I worked at a german university where recognizing of human faces was researched. We also did 3D reconstruction of faces, which was useful for training some algorithms. Although the technique is very different, 3D reconstruction from 2D images is not that new. Some examples can still be seen here: link
A simple test:
1. What is mine is yours.
2. What is yours is mine.
If you think 1. and 2. are equal use the GPL, else BSDL.
in this case, since the rights granted by a licence correspond to the freedom to exercise those rights.
Just that this license restricts you and also all others which might use your work. It is just claimed that this leads to "more freedom" because bad people are restricted from doing bad things. But in the end everyone is forced to comply with the terms of this license. A license cannot grant any right that you do not already have. At least not if source code is publically released by the copyright owner. In this case it can only restrict what you can do with it, else it is public domain.
In real life, all freedom has boundaries, and any specific freedom is relative to something. We talk about "freedom of speech", but there are externally imposed restraints to that, such as restraints on threats, or incitements to riot, or yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.
Yes in real life freedom has boundaries, therefore you are not completely free. Freedom is a condition. And freedom also means that you can do things which do not seem right and which might have bad consequences for you. If you yell "fire" in a crowded place this is seriously wrong, _but_ if you cannot do it you would not be free. And that is the problem of the FSF. They try to enforce goodness not freedom. But they do this by forcing other people to comply with their license because once you get caught by the GPL you may never leave. Only if you start from scratch, which is impossible in most situations (e.g. large software projects).
So it is perfectly valid for the FSF to describe the rights granted by the GPL as "freedoms". In terms of the definition of freedom, those rights give people the power to act on the source code of the programs they use without the severe externally imposed restraint of being denied access to the source code. The fact that other freedoms are withheld in order to achieve this freedom is inherent in the nature of freedom, as I pointed out in the grandparent comment.
No as I have said above, freedom is a condition. And this condition means to be not influencd by externally imposed restrains. Freedom also means that you can do wrong or that you allow other people to do wrong. And wrong is a very subjective term.
The FSF and also your usage of "freedoms" is somewhat technical. "One freedom, two freedoms, three freedoms, n freedoms, n+1 freedoms". Freedom cannot be counted, weighted. It is a condition, a rather simple one, which is I have to admit, hard to achieve.
of their programs, including withhold it from users. You cannot deny that this is withholding a freedom from users: again, freedoms are a tradeoff, and in this case granting a freedom to developers withholds it from users.
It might withhold it from users. A developer gives other developers the right to withhold it for various reasons. But the developer or user adopting the work of the original developer is free to choose what he wants to do. He is not forced to adopt the GPL and it's various restrictions.
And that is the problem that arises here. Now the GPL, constructed to benefit the open source community locks out a part of that community because it does not agree with it's conditions. This is just totalitarian.
Governments give them that right. They have the legal right to impose their idea of freedom on users of software licensed under the GPL. They have the legal right to license software under the GPL if the software being licensed does not already have a license which prevents that. So what's your point?
The point is that they try to enforce what they think is right through the viral nature of their license. They try to convince people that what they do is the right thing. But in the end if people do not follow their arguments they pull out their legal documents and force them to behave in a "good" way. Or at least to behave by their definition of good.
It is ironic that I agree with objections again
I think many confuse enforcing freedom with enforcing rights. In a civilized society you have rights. For example the right to be physically and mentally unharmed or the right to speak freely. These rights are maintained. In my opinion the GPL does not enforce freedom. One may say it enforces certain rights. Like the right for everyone to adopt the work of others. This is not a bad thing. But to call it free is just not true and this is what I think is causing the harsh reactions of many BSD developers.
Wordnet defines freedom as "the condition of being free; the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints"
Wikipedia: "the condition of being free; the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints"
So basically freedom means you may do as you like without external restrictions hindering you. But the GPL is very restrictive in what you may do! It limits your actions, thus limiting your ability to do as you like, thus you are not free. Saying that this preserves the freedom of the others does not change the situation for you, as your freedom is still limited.
Forcing individuals to free the community is just not right and dangerous to do.
Who gives the FSF the right to impose their idea of freedom to everyone else? This is not the idea of freedom or sharing, it is merely a way to pressure others into doing what you think is right.
Bad things are often done with good intent.
No but this a good example what enforcing freedom does. People now live in fear of death more than ever, not knowing what the term freedom even means. Freedom is not something which can be declared.
A state for example should protect it's citizens from harm because it has got legitimation from it's citizens to do so. But you surely agree that people should be allowed to leave, if they for some reason like it somewhere else better? I'm glad I don't live in a country which builds a wall around itself so the citizens don't leave. Now think about viral licenses. If you are free to live as a free man, but you aren't protected from kidnap, does that mean living free is an illusion if force is used to prevent kidnap and make it real (though useless) if there is no force?
I surely wouldn't feel very good if I had to worship someone or some group or get else get kidnapped.
Who knows, maybe they will or did already. Maybe they will never contribute anything.
The real point is that GPL'ed code is automatically prevented from being given back to non-GPL projects by law.
Nothing restricted by the GPL should be called free.
"Giving freedom" and taking it away from others does not sound quite right. I think the whole point of enforcing freedom only leads to bad things. History shows that. Enforcing freedom is an oxymoron. If you enforce freedom it's not quite that free, is it?
GPL sounds like free as in communism.
In soviet russia, license violate you!