If the GPL people were truly in a 'giving' mood then they'd give and ask for nothing in return.
GPL is not about giving. It's about the users having some freedoms, all of which exist in GPL and other free software licenses.
Instead they remove freedom.
No they don't : it prevents you from taking away the users'freedom. Freedom doesn't imply freedom to abuse and to remove users'rights. They just fight the reuse of the code in software that should not exist (proprietary software).
The whole point to GPL is to *encourage* source sharing. However, it oversteps the mark by *forcing* sharing. Choice is removed whichever way you look at it.
No. The point is not to encourage source sharing, it is to consider non-free software unacceptable, because it remove users'freedom.
And yes, I do consider GPL to be a disease, a cancer that simply grows, the logical end result being death of the host.
You can, but I've never seen any valid argument for this comparison. If you prefer other licenses, use them, no problem for that, but the disease comparison is just irrelevant.
A single.c file covered by the GPL is a virus if added to a project (...) because it insists that all other files in your project, or that use its features in a binary fashion, ALSO be GPLd
No that's plain FUD. The rest of the code is not GPLd and will never be GPLd if you don't want to. The result is just illegal. If you want it to be legal, remove this GPLd.c, and rewrite it or use another one.
Isn't this awfully familiar to what the closed-source companies say?
No, this is just a copyright notice. You have the source, you can use it (no discrimination), modify it, redistribute it, etc. Only the license cannot be modified.
While I agree that some software works well when it's free as in speech, there is also a need for developers to make money.
No. If developers want to make money, that's their problem. They can choose proprietary licences. They can do what they want. GPLd software is not for them if they want to take away the users'rights.
The GPL is overly restrictive, as it requires any project that contains any GPLd code to release all their code. That is ridiculous.
No. These projects do not just "contain" GPL code. They are derivative work of GPL the code. Obviously you want public domain code.
I will give credit where credit is due, but I will never release any of my code under the GPL, because I believe in capitalism.
Free software has not been made for capitalism. On the contrary, it's based on cooperative work. GPLd code cannot be used by capitalist proprietary software companies ? Not a problem, it wasn't made for them.
Then how do you explain EULA's and people who did not know that when the said "I Agree", they were giving their IP/pr0n/content provider exclusive rights to modify their machine WITHOUT their knowledge or tacit permission?
They said "I Agree".
Just because someone installs software doesn't mean they read all the fine print.
They have to. But here we're talking about developpers, not users.
So perhaps the virus analogy is valid. I hadn't thought about it that way before.
It is not, because if you release some code, you have to know that you're not allowed to use any kind of code you do not own, except public domain code. Then maybe, if you're lucky, there exists some code you can reuse (which license gives you the right to do this). Unless you find that you're allowed to do so, the code must be considered "forbidden" (for release, and even for use).
Then someone releasing GPLd code with non-GPLd code could be sued, but that doesn't mean his code would become GPLd. He'd just have to stop releasing the actual software (since he has no right to do so), and maybe pay. The code doesn't "become" GPLd automagically. So there's no virus comparison.
It isn't FUD whatsoever : To use GPLd code you might apply the GPL license to your own code as well.
It is FUD. A virus won't ask you to choose if you want it or not. GPL is not public domain, you can't use it without restrictions. The fact that you have source code doesn't mean you own it.
There's no 0.81 0.91 0.92 etc. Version numbers were 0.8.1, 0.9.1, 0.9.2 etc. 0.9.1 can't be considered as 0.91.
- why no 0.9x1 for 0.9.x.1 ?
- where will you put 0.9.10 if there is such a version number ?
And it's not logarithmic. (just 2 linear parts (0.6 -> 0.8 and 0.9 -> 0.9.8)).
This tax is for floppies too. I didn't know people were storing mp3 albums on floppies... sure people don't buy lots of floppies anymore so who cares ?, but how can they ask for a tax on floppies !?
The same government was very proud of a new law (applicable since jan 1st), that emphasizes the fact that nobody can be considered guilty in any lawsuit if he/she's not proven to be guilty (this was a need, due to some excessively slow processes in justice). A good thing of course, but every computer owner is still supposed to be a pirate...
Linux is just the kernel, not the OS, same thing for every component. They are just parts of operating systems such as Debian, Slackware, Redhat etc. There can't be too much choice.
If there's a lack of cohesion, it's in the distros, and only in the distros. You're comparing Windows to the set of all linux distros, while you should compare it to 1 distro only. Then I agree there might be too much useless choice in some of them. Maybe distros for beginners should have even less choice than they currently have.
Well you say yourself your post is a bit trollish, I think it's even a bit more than you think. Actually, the facts you're talking about are true, but you make a mistake when you consider that french people all agree with this or consider this as a fight.
Sure, some ministers try sometimes to fight english words in french, and we still laugh at their ridiculous proposals. There are at least 5 available translations for "e-mail", a minority use them, most peole use "e-mail" or "mail". There are dozens or more probably hundreds of examples. Some would like to fight english words, but french people don't follow them.
And about films, I don't think helping french films is paranoid when 80% of the films in theatres are american. The goal is not to have 100% french films, just to keep a percentage for french films to exist. If what you're saying were true, we just wouldn't watch any american movie, and of course that's false.
There is no global rejection. Cultures are different, I know I wouldn't be able to live in your country too long, so what, do I have to hate you just because of that ? Sorry, I don't.
Don't forget that most of the decisions you seem to notice come from a few people (judge, minister, etc). It does not mean french people agree.
Since many of these old games (and applications) don't generate revenue in any way, shape or form for the company any longer, why don't they release them under a license so that the general public can use them without fear of breaking EULAs or copywrite law?
Maybe because you would get these cheap or free games, and spend some times playing them, instead of being a good customer who buys new and expensive games. They're just afraid you could have too much fun with these games and forget to buy new ones ! (or at least that you may buy less products than you would otherwise).
It doesn't hold very well ? Of course, look at what you are doing : we know that it's approximate, so we know that every step has an error. Then why do you consider each step's result is good ? You keep the initial error all along, and each step's error after that, and in the final result there are all 10 errors from each step ! Of course, the law is not exact, it's not every 18 month, it's every n months and of course n changes but this law is good just because it means "we can expect the figures to double every few years". I don't think a rational calculus like you did at the beginning can mean anything with such a law, this law doesn't "claim" to be that precise...
(sorry for my bad engligh, i guess there are some horrors in what i wrote...)
So don't put an "annoying cukoo sound", but some White Zombie track named "Celine Dion - blah blah unplugged" or a Beethoven Symphony titled "Limp Bizkit - blah blah [rare track]". The choice of the sound you encode/the name you give it is very important, you know;-P
A french artist has a site describing his own fire organ, you'll find some impressive pics there. He has several instruments (including drums) working this way. The site is :
http://perso.club-internet.fr/orguafeu (there's an english version)
And you'll find there a picture of the 1st fire organ, created in the 18th century !
Sure, saying "Echelon is bad" is particularly hypocritical, since there is a french Echelon too. I don't know what's its scale, but I heard this information last week (I'm sorry I can't find any link, but maybe someone will, it's quite recent and I believe it's serious). Even if it's just inside France, an "Echelon" is actually used by the french government.
Now we know that this attack that resulted in the death of a waitress is not linked to Bove's movement. It was due to independantist people -- that's something completely different.
Exactly, he may have good ideas, and what he did was vandalism. But notice that when these events occurred, and when Bove was emprisonned for a week or two, many many people went into some Mac Donalds and offered french or other alternative products. That was their demonstration against MacDonald. At least, those people have realised that vandalism is really the wrong way, and that this initial event was a mistake.
Slashdot Mirror
If the GPL people were truly in a 'giving' mood then they'd give and ask for nothing in return.
GPL is not about giving. It's about the users having some freedoms, all of which exist in GPL and other free software licenses.
Instead they remove freedom.
No they don't : it prevents you from taking away the users'freedom. Freedom doesn't imply freedom to abuse and to remove users'rights. They just fight the reuse of the code in software that should not exist (proprietary software).
The whole point to GPL is to *encourage* source sharing. However, it oversteps the mark by *forcing* sharing. Choice is removed whichever way you look at it.
No. The point is not to encourage source sharing, it is to consider non-free software unacceptable, because it remove users'freedom.
And yes, I do consider GPL to be a disease, a cancer that simply grows, the logical end result being death of the host.
You can, but I've never seen any valid argument for this comparison. If you prefer other licenses, use them, no problem for that, but the disease comparison is just irrelevant.
A single .c file covered by the GPL is a virus if added to a project (...) because it insists that all other files in your project, or that use its features in a binary fashion, ALSO be GPLd
.c, and rewrite it or use another one.
No that's plain FUD. The rest of the code is not GPLd and will never be GPLd if you don't want to. The result is just illegal. If you want it to be legal, remove this GPLd
Isn't this awfully familiar to what the closed-source companies say?
No, this is just a copyright notice. You have the source, you can use it (no discrimination), modify it, redistribute it, etc. Only the license cannot be modified.
While I agree that some software works well when it's free as in speech, there is also a need for developers to make money.
No. If developers want to make money, that's their problem. They can choose proprietary licences. They can do what they want. GPLd software is not for them if they want to take away the users'rights.
The GPL is overly restrictive, as it requires any project that contains any GPLd code to release all their code. That is ridiculous.
No. These projects do not just "contain" GPL code. They are derivative work of GPL the code. Obviously you want public domain code.
I will give credit where credit is due, but I will never release any of my code under the GPL, because I believe in capitalism.
Free software has not been made for capitalism. On the contrary, it's based on cooperative work. GPLd code cannot be used by capitalist proprietary software companies ? Not a problem, it wasn't made for them.
Then how do you explain EULA's and people who did not know that when the said "I Agree", they were giving their IP/pr0n/content provider exclusive rights to modify their machine WITHOUT their knowledge or tacit permission?
They said "I Agree".
Just because someone installs software doesn't mean they read all the fine print.
They have to. But here we're talking about developpers, not users.
So perhaps the virus analogy is valid. I hadn't thought about it that way before.
It is not, because if you release some code, you have to know that you're not allowed to use any kind of code you do not own, except public domain code. Then maybe, if you're lucky, there exists some code you can reuse (which license gives you the right to do this). Unless you find that you're allowed to do so, the code must be considered "forbidden" (for release, and even for use).
Then someone releasing GPLd code with non-GPLd code could be sued, but that doesn't mean his code would become GPLd. He'd just have to stop releasing the actual software (since he has no right to do so), and maybe pay. The code doesn't "become" GPLd automagically. So there's no virus comparison.
It isn't FUD whatsoever : To use GPLd code you might apply the GPL license to your own code as well.
It is FUD. A virus won't ask you to choose if you want it or not. GPL is not public domain, you can't use it without restrictions. The fact that you have source code doesn't mean you own it.
Actually you just want to steal the code.
There's no 0.81 0.91 0.92 etc. Version numbers were 0.8.1, 0.9.1, 0.9.2 etc. 0.9.1 can't be considered as 0.91.
- why no 0.9x1 for 0.9.x.1 ?
- where will you put 0.9.10 if there is such a version number ?
And it's not logarithmic. (just 2 linear parts (0.6 -> 0.8 and 0.9 -> 0.9.8)).
Yahoo news about this, found on LinuxFR. (article in french)
Linux is just the kernel, not the OS, same thing for every component. They are just parts of operating systems such as Debian, Slackware, Redhat etc. There can't be too much choice.
If there's a lack of cohesion, it's in the distros, and only in the distros. You're comparing Windows to the set of all linux distros, while you should compare it to 1 distro only. Then I agree there might be too much useless choice in some of them. Maybe distros for beginners should have even less choice than they currently have.
Well you say yourself your post is a bit trollish, I think it's even a bit more than you think. Actually, the facts you're talking about are true, but you make a mistake when you consider that french people all agree with this or consider this as a fight.
Sure, some ministers try sometimes to fight english words in french, and we still laugh at their ridiculous proposals. There are at least 5 available translations for "e-mail", a minority use them, most peole use "e-mail" or "mail". There are dozens or more probably hundreds of examples. Some would like to fight english words, but french people don't follow them.
And about films, I don't think helping french films is paranoid when 80% of the films in theatres are american. The goal is not to have 100% french films, just to keep a percentage for french films to exist. If what you're saying were true, we just wouldn't watch any american movie, and of course that's false.
There is no global rejection. Cultures are different, I know I wouldn't be able to live in your country too long, so what, do I have to hate you just because of that ? Sorry, I don't.
Don't forget that most of the decisions you seem to notice come from a few people (judge, minister, etc). It does not mean french people agree.
Since many of these old games (and applications) don't generate revenue in any way, shape or form for the company any longer, why don't they release them under a license so that the general public can use them without fear of breaking EULAs or copywrite law?
Maybe because you would get these cheap or free games, and spend some times playing them, instead of being a good customer who buys new and expensive games. They're just afraid you could have too much fun with these games and forget to buy new ones ! (or at least that you may buy less products than you would otherwise).
It doesn't hold very well ? Of course, look at what you are doing : we know that it's approximate, so we know that every step has an error. Then why do you consider each step's result is good ? You keep the initial error all along, and each step's error after that, and in the final result there are all 10 errors from each step ! Of course, the law is not exact, it's not every 18 month, it's every n months and of course n changes but this law is good just because it means "we can expect the figures to double every few years". I don't think a rational calculus like you did at the beginning can mean anything with such a law, this law doesn't "claim" to be that precise... (sorry for my bad engligh, i guess there are some horrors in what i wrote...)
So don't put an "annoying cukoo sound", but some White Zombie track named "Celine Dion - blah blah unplugged" or a Beethoven Symphony titled "Limp Bizkit - blah blah [rare track]". The choice of the sound you encode/the name you give it is very important, you know ;-P
A french artist has a site describing his own fire organ, you'll find some impressive pics there. He has several instruments (including drums) working this way. The site is :
http://perso.club-internet.fr/orguafeu (there's an english version)
And you'll find there a picture of the 1st fire organ, created in the 18th century !
Sure, saying "Echelon is bad" is particularly hypocritical, since there is a french Echelon too. I don't know what's its scale, but I heard this information last week (I'm sorry I can't find any link, but maybe someone will, it's quite recent and I believe it's serious). Even if it's just inside France, an "Echelon" is actually used by the french government.
Now we know that this attack that resulted in the death of a waitress is not linked to Bove's movement. It was due to independantist people -- that's something completely different.
Exactly, he may have good ideas, and what he did was vandalism. But notice that when these events occurred, and when Bove was emprisonned for a week or two, many many people went into some Mac Donalds and offered french or other alternative products. That was their demonstration against MacDonald. At least, those people have realised that vandalism is really the wrong way, and that this initial event was a mistake.