"Just because something benefits the society as a whole doesn't make it communistic---if it were, Soviet Russia must've been a paradise."
Do you even know the definition of communism? Here it is:
"a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state."
This sounds exactly like software licensed under the GNU license. It's owned by the community, rather than an individual (or the state...which in this case is the FSF).
Why is it so hard for the open source community to admit that it is software communism?
"And when I donate source code I donate it with the intention that any end user be allowed to modify and run it, wherever or on whatever they recieved that code from."
The source code, including your changes, can still be downloaded for free from you or anywhere else. No rights are lost. You just don't get tivo's changes.
"Free software is the epitome of free market economics; it's the enforcement of absolute competition."
No, it's not. Free software makes it so there is no incentive for competition. Why would you bother trying to innovate if you lose all leverage once it's released?
As more and more stores start appearing in the news about "gpl violations", more companies are going to realize that it's dangerous to use any form of GPLd code. As a business owner, why would I want to even take the risk that the FSF could walk in one day and tell me I have to give away all of my work for free? I even heard that one of the requirements in a GPL lawsuit was a GNU compliance officer.
"Considering that proprietary software builds upon state protected monopoly rights and, as is becoming quite obvious, has more in common with former soviet style state factories (you _will_ use Vista and you _will_ like it; no alternate providers here), I'd say comments about socialism are weak."
This is hardly the case. If you don't like vista, don't use it. There are countless other alternatives (macOSX, hundreds of linux distributions). You can't say Microsoft is a monopoly anymore with so many other operating system choices.
Even if there were no copyright laws, you still won't have the source..and couldn't build on it.
and it's more like communism than socialism. Enforced by the FSF lawyers and US law.
"and the rich part gets more and more "evil"... money scraped off the backs of others and hoarded for a life of excess (well, also as I get older, mostly for hookers, blackjack, and blow)."
I think you have realized that becoming rich is not easy, especially if you want to make an honest living. It's much easier to go in to a regular 9-5 and sit on your ass and get paid..with little to no risk.
It's easy to say that you don't want to become rich or famous, but most likely..you couldn't be either if you tried your hardest.
The act of being rich is not evil. It seems to be a popular thing to say, but many people that are rich have earned it.
"Let's face it. There are no people who had amassed Gates' level of wealth by writing a bunch of checks and being nice people."
It depends on what you consider nice. I don't consider making a profit mean, but if you want to stay in business..you can' give your money away either.
"Thing is, if you had that much wealth and power and you grew a conscience (or at the very least it got a hand free and escaped its bindings), how would you fix it? How would you stand to the side of your parents' graves and say, "I've made you proud, and the world is a better place for you having birthed me"?"
If you are bill gates..it's easy. He brought computers into a large percentage of homes and has donated a large percentage of his wealth.
Can you say the same thing about ANY of the open source community leaders?
"Copyright, Patents and other types of intellectual property rights are there to promote the advancement of the arts and sciences. They aren't there to garantee profit for ever. That is why they were made limited in the first place. What the RIAA/MPAA is trying to do is make them unlimited."
How are they trying to make them unlimited? We are talking about the RIAA and the current copyright/patent laws. All of the movies/music that is being shared falls under current copyright law. You just don't like the fact that you can't get your music and movies for free.
"Defending our own freedoms does not mean we are for the FSF's political agenda. It just means we value our own freedom above corporate greed. Maybe you don't, and that's exactly what a shill is."
I value my freedoms. This is why I believe in the BSD license. The FSF, no matter how may times they say otherwise is anti-capitalistic. It seems even the word "free" is intentionally used so corporations use the code and eventually are forced to open source their apps.
How is this about corporate greed? The original developer isn't losing a thing. They still have rights to the original source code and aren't losing money. The only thing they miss out on are changes that are made to the original code (which aren't the developer's in the first place).
"well then they should right their own code and quit leeching off the good nature of free software developers. They can have it one way or the other but they can't have it both ways"
How is it leeching? I thought we were talking about freedom here.
I just wish everyone would stop calling it free software when it's far from free.
"In the case of MPAA/RIAA, they've launched lawsuits that were without merit, lots of them, and have been clogging the courts with these cases. Somehow I doubt that children would be violating the GPL, unless they were building products and shipping them, and the same goes for the elderly."
There were very few cases against children and the elderly. The RIAA was just using it as a scare tactic to get people to stop stealing their works.
I haven't heard of such a case in at least a year.
They also did have merit. If you are caught violating their license, you got sued (it's very easy. Just don't violate the license). The exact same thing is happening to companies violating the GPL license.
"This statement seems, to me, to be without merit, as this person merely would rather support the FSF over the MPAA/RIAA. This is not a matter of losing freedoms, merely who one would support in this matter."
you would rather take away the rights of the MPAA/RIAA than the FSF.
"The GPL has clauses that say that you can charge a reasonable price for source redistribution (s+h charges, media charges, etc..). There is nothing that will put them out of business."
Competitors can also get their hands on the source code. Also, anyone that downloads the source can also compile it and release it for free. If it got popular enough, it would effectively put the company out of business.
"The difference is the GPL is trying to defend your rights as a user of the software by keeping all the modifications and source code open for everyone to profit from. The RIAA/MPAA is trying to defend their own rights by making sure none of their works ever reach the Public Domain where everyone can profit from them. If you can't see the difference, you're a shill or a tool."
I see the similarities. You are the shill and the tool used to spread the FSF's political agenda.
By allowing everyone to profit from something, the value rapidly approaches $0 and the result is that nobody can profit from it.
"The RIAA/MPAA is trying to defend their own rights by making sure none of their works ever reach the Public Domain where everyone can profit from them"
This is their choice. They created their works and have the right to protect it.
"Because the FSF concern themselves with making companies provide the code to their consumers and stuff like that, stuff that costs pretty much NOTHING to do and makes it more fair on the consumer."
costs nothing? Hardly. It could mean the end of business for a company that has been built on open source and now has to release it.
"The RIAA/MPAA concern themselves with suing random people, including children and the elderly."
They are protecting their IP and so is the FSF. The only difference is that they are going after individuals instead of companies (which should not matter). If children and the elderly were violating the GPL..would it be okay to go after them too?
"Maybe I'm just horribly biased but I'll choose a company protecting consumer freedom over a company protecting the record/film industry any time, regardless of whether they act similar in some ways."
I see, so you are for freedoms for only certain people in the united states.
"This is total "bootstrap" bullshit. I would consider myself lower middle class and I seriously doubt that several lucky situations pass by me every day which would make me rich."
You aren't paying attention or looking hard enough.
"You will, for the most part, live and die in the class you're born."
Not me.
"There are a couple things I could be working on to try and make some more money and maybe they'd take off... but it' sonly a chance. If it didn't take off you'd say "You missed your opportunity to be rich"... when the odds are MUCH greater that it would fail, and you would ever say "You're right, you probably won't be rich."
Most people aren't willing to put in the time and effort to create a successful business. Are you willing to spend all your free time after work for a couple of years working on a business idea?
"But that is for YOUR code... we are talking here about something else entirely... your using GPL code which is NOT your own code. Since in this case you did not write the GPL code in the first place, and the GPL code that you received is already public anyway (obviously, since you received it didn't you?)... then how does it hurt you to re-distribute the source code to others?"
How does it hurt the original author or the community if I make changes to GPLd code and don't release those changes? The original code is still there, but my additions (which took my time and possibly money) are not released.
You are not restricted in any way, except for the fact that you don't get my changes, which weren't yours in the first place.
"The DRM being inflicted on software, the security by obscurity, the locking in of software by refusing to permit non-vendor software to be installed, the refusal to allow others to modify and publish the software, all have been a real problem with other licenses."
If you don't like DRM licensed IP, don't use it. Just like the GPL is a choice to use, so is DRM and other proprietary licenses.
"GPL has effectively prevent hardware/software lockins, by Netgear and Linksys. The new GPLv3 will block patent lockins, such as those espoused by Microsoft, and DRM lockins, used by Tivo. None of the other licenses would have prevented this. We've also seen very specific abuses of the other licenses already, such as the Microsoft abuse of the MIT license on Kerberos to break non-Microsoft published Kerberos clients. And the GPL has already helped several companies that I'm aware of from simply adding on their own modifications, refusing to publish their modifications, deliberately making it inoperable with other's versions, and locking clients in this way."
It prevents lockins from naive companies that decide to use GPLd code in their proprietary apps. Even without the GPL, the original code could never be locked. If you release it into public domain, a company could take it and make their changes without releasing, but, the original code would still be there in all its glory.
"Dude, you misspelt shit. Seriously, though, so what? Who cares how the GPL makes you feel? This is about a company *choosing* to use the GPL. If you choose to use a GPL'd app you do so in full knowledge of the copyleft restrictions that in requires. If the GPL "makes you angry" you don't use GPL'd applications. It really is that simple. It's easy to avoid the anger - avoid licenses that anger you."
Music/proprietary applications have a similar license for protecting IP, yet when there are articles about thepiratebay on slashdot, most people are all for it and against the RIAA and MPAA. It's really that simple. If you do
The FSF is essentially doing the exact same thing that the recording industry has been doing for years..and the majority of people here agree with them.
"He won't support the company in question by his money because he has strong reason to believe that they engage in, at the very least, unethical (and quite possibly, outright illegal) business practices. Why, exactly, is he an "idiot"?"
Because he is basing his reasons on one person with one experience and hasn't gotten the actual facts.
"Heh, joking aside I feel the frustration of companies taking advantage of GPL code. Especially when it's YOUR code."
I'm not sure how they are taking advantage.
The company uses your "free" source code in their app and what do you lose? You aren't losing money, you still own the original code, and the only thing you don't get is the company's possible changes (which weren't yours in the first place).
When the zealots of the community stop telling everybody that the GPL = free (which misleads many people into thinking..well..that it's actually free), Businesses will stop using it in their applications.
But, this isn't what Stallman and the FSF wants. They want a company to use the source (without giving back), build up a business, and get it taken away in the end because they are forced to give out all of the IP (making it worthless) that they built up upon the open source base. The changes should still be owned by the company, since they could have spent years and thousands of man hours developing them, but that isn't how the license works.
I hope companies are learning to steer clear of the GPL. What we need are a few ant-GPL advocates.
"In my understanding there's no difference whether you call it GPL or Free Version. Most people don't care about the license as long as they don't have to pay for it."
Actually, most people that are rich started in middle or lower class. A small percentage of people actually inherit their fortune.
"most of the successful are just lucky while praising smarts violates the whole "we're all born equal" thing."
I see it this way: Everyone has many lucky situations that pass by them every day. Only if you are smart do you actually know what to do in those situations.
So, it is a small amount of luck and the rest is intelligence.
"When was the last time this worked anywhere in the real world, outside of a school. I can't remember a boss saying "Well, John, you really got us that million dollar contract, but I'll still promote Jeff over there, he didn't make the closing but he worked really hard on it for a month, you persuaded your customer in just a day, that's hardly an effort."
It does work that way. John, the guy that put all the work in and got the contract, gets the promotion.
"Except, uh, that's not what happened here. What happened here is that you looked up "Free", decided it didn't apply to the author of the software, and therefore that "Free Software" was bullshit. But it doesn't say "Free Use Of Software". It says "Free Software". It's like "Free Willy", it doesn't mean you can take him home, it means he jumps over the rocks and goes out in the ocean and gets eaten by a giant squid"
except..uh..that is what happened here. Stallman has come out many times and said that you are given more freedoms with "free software" (not that the software itself was free). I was merely stating my opinion on the subject, and because it differs from the slashdot groupthink..it was marked as flamebait.
When people talk about freedoms in america, are they talking about the freedoms of the stop sign or some other inanimate object?
"Look, this is very simple. The choice of license is at the discretion of the author. If the author's principal principle is that the code remain free to roam about the world, they use the GPL."
This is where I have a problem. It's not free. There are many restrictions attached to the license, voiding the definition.
"Anyway, it really is very simple to see that the GPL provides the maximum freedom for the code. This is the best situation for the developer in many cases, if their goal is for others to benefit from changes made to their code."
as I said in my post, you release your code even in the public domain others benefit to the maximum. The changes that others' make to the code are not owned by the original developer.
"As before, if you don't like the GPL, don't use it. But so much of the best software out there is licensed under the GPL, perhaps you should consider the possibility that there might be something to this whole thing after all."
Good software? maybe. The best? hardly. Most open source projects are cheap knockoffs of proprietary apps. PHP, mysql, and apache are pretty much the only open source projects I can say are good.
so when there is an article on slashdot about the RIAA, microsoft, the BSA, or DRM..and it's flooded with people basically giving the same argument I am but for pirating software..you will give the same argument..right? (just don't use it).
"Sooner or later there won't be any more closed-source operating systems. There will probably always be closed software, but it will be only for niche markets and amusements. After a certain point it just doesn't make sense to reinvent the highway system, let alone the whee"
How do you figure? Operating systems get popular when they allow for third-pary markets (see: windows). Every OS based on the GNU license makes it almost impossible for developers to actually make money. Since there are 10 variations, you are almost forced to release the source and the users generally don't believe in paying for software. I'm making broad generalizations here, but, I don't see too many app developers actually making money with it.
Microsoft made a mistake with Vista and it is time for another OS to take it's place in the market. It won't be linux..it will be OSX.
I think it's hilarious how I was told I didn't know the definition of the word free and given a link. I copied and pasted EXACT definitions from that link..and I was marked as flamebait.
Oh the joys of a biased forum masked as intelligent thought.
"The problem is yours, and it is one of reading comprehension. The GPL promises "Free Software". It does not promise free use, reuse, redistribution or anything else. The GPL is about freedom for software, not for you."
True freedom...for the users and the developers comes from the BSD license. You can do as you wish with the software and nobody is going to tell you by force to open up your code. The original developers also don't lose any freedoms because the original source is still there. It's a win-win situation.
"If you feel otherwise, feel free to try to boycott the GPL, and goodluckwiththat"
I don't need to boycott it. The large amount of gpl violators getting taken to court in the past year or so will scare businesses into not using it.
The GPL V3 is even worse. It controls services..even though it is a distribution license.
Slashdot Mirror
"Just because something benefits the society as a whole doesn't make it communistic---if it were, Soviet Russia must've been a paradise."
Do you even know the definition of communism? Here it is:
"a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state."
This sounds exactly like software licensed under the GNU license. It's owned by the community, rather than an individual (or the state...which in this case is the FSF).
Why is it so hard for the open source community to admit that it is software communism?
"Yeah!! Because lowering barriers-to-entry into the market and encouraging businesses to be competitive are so communistic.
Oh wait..."
You honestly think open source encourages competition? I removes all competition, which isn't the same thing.
"Since when is a 19 year old, of age to vote, considered a "boy"?"
You must be under 25.
"And when I donate source code I donate it with the intention that any end user be allowed to modify and run it, wherever or on whatever they recieved that code from."
The source code, including your changes, can still be downloaded for free from you or anywhere else. No rights are lost. You just don't get tivo's changes.
"Free software is the epitome of free market economics; it's the enforcement of absolute competition."
No, it's not. Free software makes it so there is no incentive for competition. Why would you bother trying to innovate if you lose all leverage once it's released?
As more and more stores start appearing in the news about "gpl violations", more companies are going to realize that it's dangerous to use any form of GPLd code. As a business owner, why would I want to even take the risk that the FSF could walk in one day and tell me I have to give away all of my work for free? I even heard that one of the requirements in a GPL lawsuit was a GNU compliance officer.
"Considering that proprietary software builds upon state protected monopoly rights and, as is becoming quite obvious, has more in common with former soviet style state factories (you _will_ use Vista and you _will_ like it; no alternate providers here), I'd say comments about socialism are weak."
This is hardly the case. If you don't like vista, don't use it. There are countless other alternatives (macOSX, hundreds of linux distributions). You can't say Microsoft is a monopoly anymore with so many other operating system choices.
Even if there were no copyright laws, you still won't have the source..and couldn't build on it.
and it's more like communism than socialism. Enforced by the FSF lawyers and US law.
"and the rich part gets more and more "evil"... money scraped off the backs of others and hoarded for a life of excess (well, also as I get older, mostly for hookers, blackjack, and blow)."
I think you have realized that becoming rich is not easy, especially if you want to make an honest living. It's much easier to go in to a regular 9-5 and sit on your ass and get paid..with little to no risk.
It's easy to say that you don't want to become rich or famous, but most likely..you couldn't be either if you tried your hardest.
The act of being rich is not evil. It seems to be a popular thing to say, but many people that are rich have earned it.
"Let's face it. There are no people who had amassed Gates' level of wealth by writing a bunch of checks and being nice people."
It depends on what you consider nice. I don't consider making a profit mean, but if you want to stay in business..you can' give your money away either.
"Thing is, if you had that much wealth and power and you grew a conscience (or at the very least it got a hand free and escaped its bindings), how would you fix it? How would you stand to the side of your parents' graves and say, "I've made you proud, and the world is a better place for you having birthed me"?"
If you are bill gates..it's easy. He brought computers into a large percentage of homes and has donated a large percentage of his wealth.
Can you say the same thing about ANY of the open source community leaders?
"Copyright, Patents and other types of intellectual property rights are there to promote the advancement of the arts and sciences. They aren't there to garantee profit for ever. That is why they were made limited in the first place. What the RIAA/MPAA is trying to do is make them unlimited."
How are they trying to make them unlimited? We are talking about the RIAA and the current copyright/patent laws. All of the movies/music that is being shared falls under current copyright law. You just don't like the fact that you can't get your music and movies for free.
"Defending our own freedoms does not mean we are for the FSF's political agenda. It just means we value our own freedom above corporate greed. Maybe you don't, and that's exactly what a shill is."
I value my freedoms. This is why I believe in the BSD license. The FSF, no matter how may times they say otherwise is anti-capitalistic. It seems even the word "free" is intentionally used so corporations use the code and eventually are forced to open source their apps.
How is this about corporate greed? The original developer isn't losing a thing. They still have rights to the original source code and aren't losing money. The only thing they miss out on are changes that are made to the original code (which aren't the developer's in the first place).
"well then they should right their own code and quit leeching off the good nature of free software developers. They can have it one way or the other but they can't have it both ways"
How is it leeching? I thought we were talking about freedom here.
I just wish everyone would stop calling it free software when it's far from free.
"In the case of MPAA/RIAA, they've launched lawsuits that were without merit, lots of them, and have been clogging the courts with these cases. Somehow I doubt that children would be violating the GPL, unless they were building products and shipping them, and the same goes for the elderly."
There were very few cases against children and the elderly. The RIAA was just using it as a scare tactic to get people to stop stealing their works.
I haven't heard of such a case in at least a year.
They also did have merit. If you are caught violating their license, you got sued (it's very easy. Just don't violate the license). The exact same thing is happening to companies violating the GPL license.
"This statement seems, to me, to be without merit, as this person merely would rather support the FSF over the MPAA/RIAA. This is not a matter of losing freedoms, merely who one would support in this matter."
you would rather take away the rights of the MPAA/RIAA than the FSF.
Freedom doesn't work this way.
"I'm for freedoms for PEOPLE, not companies. (And I'm not American but I realise that's irrelevant)"
COMPANIES are started and run by PEOPLE, so freedoms for a company = freedom for people.
"The GPL has clauses that say that you can charge a reasonable price for source redistribution (s+h charges, media charges, etc..). There is nothing that will put them out of business."
Competitors can also get their hands on the source code. Also, anyone that downloads the source can also compile it and release it for free. If it got popular enough, it would effectively put the company out of business.
"The difference is the GPL is trying to defend your rights as a user of the software by keeping all the modifications and source code open for everyone to profit from. The RIAA/MPAA is trying to defend their own rights by making sure none of their works ever reach the Public Domain where everyone can profit from them. If you can't see the difference, you're a shill or a tool."
I see the similarities. You are the shill and the tool used to spread the FSF's political agenda.
By allowing everyone to profit from something, the value rapidly approaches $0 and the result is that nobody can profit from it.
"The RIAA/MPAA is trying to defend their own rights by making sure none of their works ever reach the Public Domain where everyone can profit from them"
This is their choice. They created their works and have the right to protect it.
"Because the FSF concern themselves with making companies provide the code to their consumers and stuff like that, stuff that costs pretty much NOTHING to do and makes it more fair on the consumer."
costs nothing? Hardly. It could mean the end of business for a company that has been built on open source and now has to release it.
"The RIAA/MPAA concern themselves with suing random people, including children and the elderly."
They are protecting their IP and so is the FSF. The only difference is that they are going after individuals instead of companies (which should not matter). If children and the elderly were violating the GPL..would it be okay to go after them too?
"Maybe I'm just horribly biased but I'll choose a company protecting consumer freedom over a company protecting the record/film industry any time, regardless of whether they act similar in some ways."
I see, so you are for freedoms for only certain people in the united states.
"This is total "bootstrap" bullshit. I would consider myself lower middle class and I seriously doubt that several lucky situations pass by me every day which would make me rich."
You aren't paying attention or looking hard enough.
"You will, for the most part, live and die in the class you're born."
Not me.
"There are a couple things I could be working on to try and make some more money and maybe they'd take off... but it' sonly a chance. If it didn't take off you'd say "You missed your opportunity to be rich"... when the odds are MUCH greater that it would fail, and you would ever say "You're right, you probably won't be rich."
Most people aren't willing to put in the time and effort to create a successful business. Are you willing to spend all your free time after work for a couple of years working on a business idea?
"But that is for YOUR code ... we are talking here about something else entirely ... your using GPL code which is NOT your own code. Since in this case you did not write the GPL code in the first place, and the GPL code that you received is already public anyway (obviously, since you received it didn't you?) ... then how does it hurt you to re-distribute the source code to others?"
How does it hurt the original author or the community if I make changes to GPLd code and don't release those changes? The original code is still there, but my additions (which took my time and possibly money) are not released.
You are not restricted in any way, except for the fact that you don't get my changes, which weren't yours in the first place.
"The DRM being inflicted on software, the security by obscurity, the locking in of software by refusing to permit non-vendor software to be installed, the refusal to allow others to modify and publish the software, all have been a real problem with other licenses."
If you don't like DRM licensed IP, don't use it. Just like the GPL is a choice to use, so is DRM and other proprietary licenses.
"GPL has effectively prevent hardware/software lockins, by Netgear and Linksys. The new GPLv3 will block patent lockins, such as those espoused by Microsoft, and DRM lockins, used by Tivo. None of the other licenses would have prevented this. We've also seen very specific abuses of the other licenses already, such as the Microsoft abuse of the MIT license on Kerberos to break non-Microsoft published Kerberos clients. And the GPL has already helped several companies that I'm aware of from simply adding on their own modifications, refusing to publish their modifications, deliberately making it inoperable with other's versions, and locking clients in this way."
It prevents lockins from naive companies that decide to use GPLd code in their proprietary apps. Even without the GPL, the original code could never be locked. If you release it into public domain, a company could take it and make their changes without releasing, but, the original code would still be there in all its glory.
"Dude, you misspelt shit. Seriously, though, so what? Who cares how the GPL makes you feel? This is about a company *choosing* to use the GPL. If you choose to use a GPL'd app you do so in full knowledge of the copyleft restrictions that in requires. If the GPL "makes you angry" you don't use GPL'd applications. It really is that simple. It's easy to avoid the anger - avoid licenses that anger you."
Music/proprietary applications have a similar license for protecting IP, yet when there are articles about thepiratebay on slashdot, most people are all for it and against the RIAA and MPAA. It's really that simple. If you do
The FSF is essentially doing the exact same thing that the recording industry has been doing for years..and the majority of people here agree with them.
"He won't support the company in question by his money because he has strong reason to believe that they engage in, at the very least, unethical (and quite possibly, outright illegal) business practices. Why, exactly, is he an "idiot"?"
Because he is basing his reasons on one person with one experience and hasn't gotten the actual facts.
"Heh, joking aside I feel the frustration of companies taking advantage of GPL code. Especially when it's YOUR code."
I'm not sure how they are taking advantage.
The company uses your "free" source code in their app and what do you lose? You aren't losing money, you still own the original code, and the only thing you don't get is the company's possible changes (which weren't yours in the first place).
When the zealots of the community stop telling everybody that the GPL = free (which misleads many people into thinking..well..that it's actually free), Businesses will stop using it in their applications.
But, this isn't what Stallman and the FSF wants. They want a company to use the source (without giving back), build up a business, and get it taken away in the end because they are forced to give out all of the IP (making it worthless) that they built up upon the open source base. The changes should still be owned by the company, since they could have spent years and thousands of man hours developing them, but that isn't how the license works.
I hope companies are learning to steer clear of the GPL. What we need are a few ant-GPL advocates.
"In my understanding there's no difference whether you call it GPL or Free Version. Most people don't care about the license as long as they don't have to pay for it."
Which for 99% of the population..is true.
"As they are not, they are liable to copyright theft law suits. This company is now a "criminal", just like the MPAA and RIAA targets."
and how is the FSF better than the MPAA/RIAA? I thought they were supposed to be more "free". Not just like them.
"I respectfully disagree with the last statement. Bush is a complete idiot, listen to any of his interviews, the man barely comprehends English!"
Just because someone is not a good orator does not mean they are a moron.
I see a another effect with Obama. He speaks well, but is an idiot. He is like a smooth business man that has experience in bullshit and nothing more.
"Well, most of the rich inherited the money"
Actually, most people that are rich started in middle or lower class. A small percentage of people actually inherit their fortune.
"most of the successful are just lucky while praising smarts violates the whole "we're all born equal" thing."
I see it this way: Everyone has many lucky situations that pass by them every day. Only if you are smart do you actually know what to do in those situations.
So, it is a small amount of luck and the rest is intelligence.
"When was the last time this worked anywhere in the real world, outside of a school. I can't remember a boss saying "Well, John, you really got us that million dollar contract, but I'll still promote Jeff over there, he didn't make the closing but he worked really hard on it for a month, you persuaded your customer in just a day, that's hardly an effort."
It does work that way. John, the guy that put all the work in and got the contract, gets the promotion.
"This is the pertinent meaning."
Oh? Is that why supermicro is being taken to court and forced to release the source of their application?
"Except, uh, that's not what happened here. What happened here is that you looked up "Free", decided it didn't apply to the author of the software, and therefore that "Free Software" was bullshit. But it doesn't say "Free Use Of Software". It says "Free Software". It's like "Free Willy", it doesn't mean you can take him home, it means he jumps over the rocks and goes out in the ocean and gets eaten by a giant squid"
except..uh..that is what happened here. Stallman has come out many times and said that you are given more freedoms with "free software" (not that the software itself was free). I was merely stating my opinion on the subject, and because it differs from the slashdot groupthink..it was marked as flamebait.
When people talk about freedoms in america, are they talking about the freedoms of the stop sign or some other inanimate object?
"Look, this is very simple. The choice of license is at the discretion of the author. If the author's principal principle is that the code remain free to roam about the world, they use the GPL."
This is where I have a problem. It's not free. There are many restrictions attached to the license, voiding the definition.
"Anyway, it really is very simple to see that the GPL provides the maximum freedom for the code. This is the best situation for the developer in many cases, if their goal is for others to benefit from changes made to their code."
as I said in my post, you release your code even in the public domain others benefit to the maximum. The changes that others' make to the code are not owned by the original developer.
"As before, if you don't like the GPL, don't use it. But so much of the best software out there is licensed under the GPL, perhaps you should consider the possibility that there might be something to this whole thing after all."
Good software? maybe. The best? hardly. Most open source projects are cheap knockoffs of proprietary apps. PHP, mysql, and apache are pretty much the only open source projects I can say are good.
so when there is an article on slashdot about the RIAA, microsoft, the BSA, or DRM..and it's flooded with people basically giving the same argument I am but for pirating software..you will give the same argument..right? (just don't use it).
"Sooner or later there won't be any more closed-source operating systems. There will probably always be closed software, but it will be only for niche markets and amusements. After a certain point it just doesn't make sense to reinvent the highway system, let alone the whee"
How do you figure? Operating systems get popular when they allow for third-pary markets (see: windows). Every OS based on the GNU license makes it almost impossible for developers to actually make money. Since there are 10 variations, you are almost forced to release the source and the users generally don't believe in paying for software. I'm making broad generalizations here, but, I don't see too many app developers actually making money with it.
Microsoft made a mistake with Vista and it is time for another OS to take it's place in the market. It won't be linux..it will be OSX.
I think it's hilarious how I was told I didn't know the definition of the word free and given a link. I copied and pasted EXACT definitions from that link..and I was marked as flamebait.
Oh the joys of a biased forum masked as intelligent thought.
"The problem is yours, and it is one of reading comprehension. The GPL promises "Free Software". It does not promise free use, reuse, redistribution or anything else. The GPL is about freedom for software, not for you."
True freedom...for the users and the developers comes from the BSD license. You can do as you wish with the software and nobody is going to tell you by force to open up your code. The original developers also don't lose any freedoms because the original source is still there. It's a win-win situation.
"If you feel otherwise, feel free to try to boycott the GPL, and goodluckwiththat"
I don't need to boycott it. The large amount of gpl violators getting taken to court in the past year or so will scare businesses into not using it.
The GPL V3 is even worse. It controls services..even though it is a distribution license.