My main problem with games in X is that I have to change the screen resolution myself. Most applications I'm quite happy with seeing in a window, but games I want full screen, often at a much lower resolution. I also want cutscenes to be displayed fullscreen.
I think I'll rephrase in terms you might unsderstand.
GPL code is not fucking free you fucking fucker. This is because the user is fucking not free to use it how he fucking wants to. Got that, fuckwit? If my fucking freedom is fucking restricted, then what is the fucking point is having free fucking code?
Fucking Linux zealots like you insist that linux is fucking free, as though that somehow makes it any fucking better, and then when challenged on how free it is, fucking insult anyone who fucking questions their fucking dogma, and really get nasty if anyone want to use their fucking code in a way the fucking disapprove of.
No, no you still don't get it. You fucking stupid fucker. A word doesn't have multiple definitions, it has *one* definition. That definition may include multiple meanings depending on the context.
You are most strange. And you really need to calm down. I'm surprised how much this matters to you. I'm also surprised at your limited vocabulary. A word can have multiple defintions. Many do. This is why, for example, dictionaries offer multiple defintitions for many words. And even if you do think I'm wrong, and don't like the word "definition", I'll just say that a word can have multiple meanings.
No you didn't specify this. Someone else told you to go and look it up in the dictionary after you stuck both your feet in your mouth.
Well, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear with the very first comment in this thread, where I said that Linux is only free as in beer. Perhaps I should clarify my position.
Linux is free, but only in cost. The idea that Linux gives users freedom is a flawed argument, since there are restrictons on that freedom. The argument that the *code* is at liberty is also flawed, since it has many constraints on how it may be used.
What??? You make no sense. "restrictions on that freedom".
Exactly. If something is restricted, it is not free. Hence the sentence is self contradictory.
I am free (as in speech) allowed to create, modify and distribute code under the GPL. *You* are not allowed to do whatever you want with that, but that is no restriction on *my* freedom or the *code's* freedom.
Yes it is. Maybe not your freedom, because you on't want to do anything you're not allowed to do. The code's freedom certainly. It prevents me from using Linux code in BSD.
GPL code isn't confined. It places restrictions on its *users*, yes. Nobody is claiming it doesn't. The whole point of the GPL is to clarify those restrictions.
This is very surreal. You seem to be claiming that the code is free to to do what it wants as though it has free will.
If the user isn't free to do what he wants to do with the code, then the code isn't free. You might as well claim that CDs are free music. You can use them however you like. You can even sell them. The only restrictions are on copying them, where there are certain restrictions. But it's a stupid argument. The music isn't free, because there are restrictions on people who want to copy and distribute it.
And GPLed code isn't free, because there are restrictions on how it may be copied and distributed.
Oh, and what is it with the whole "Fuck off" thing. It really is quite pathetic.
No, I am not going to fuck off, just because you tell me to. If you think that I will, you really must be the biggest idiot.
But really, this has been apparent fot this entire thread. GPL apologists are delightfully naive when they parrot the FSF party line. And then get it wrong.
The problem is with "free distribution". The GPL does not permit unrestricted distribution. There is a clause insisitng that you have to distrubute source code.
Also, from the open source inititative's defintion, "License Must Not Restrict Other Software". The GPL does restrict other software. Non GPLed source code may not be distributed in an application where it is linked with GPLed software.
No, and this is the mistake you continue to make. The fact that you can do this makes you more free, but it doesn't imply anything about the freedom of the code.
It's not a mistake.
The code is more free, because it can be used more freely. It has fewer restrictions. I think that makes it more free.
BSD code isn't free" means that it isn't free for any meaning of the word. You don't seem to have a solid grasp on the English language and/or basic logic skills, so you must have something wrong with you.
No. I say that it isn't free in a specific sense because there are restrictions on how it may be used.
BTW. GPL code is also free because it can't be confined.
Free does not mean "Can't be confined". It means "Isn't confined". However, it is. This has prevented GPLed code from being used in BSD.
You also said this Well, I'm using the FSF's definition of free, which implies that the user is free to do what they want with it.. Everything you've said is a load of shit and you're trying to reposition yourself and make stuff up to save face. You sicken me. Please fuck off.
Ah. Right. I think I'll call you Mr.Fuckoff. There are so many ACs here, it's difficult to keep track.
You are quite right in that I have mistakenly misrepresented my meaning. Sadly, we are not all incapable of making mistakes.
What I mean to say is that the FSF's says that claims that software is free in the sense that the user has freedom to use it as he chooses. However, they follow this, with a definition that allows people to restrict this freedom.
I'm sure you are an expert, seeing as you are so good at redifinging things. I don't suppose you'd like to point to any evidence that they have redefined the word free.
Are you the same AC who I responded to earlier who is incapable of following the thread, and understanding that when I say "free" I mean in the sense of "freedom" and not price?
If you did that, then it would not be free anymore.
You'd still have the original code to do stuff with.
So why would you want to?
Some people really don't mind that other people can use their code without giving back. Other people think that if people use their code, then they can return the favour.
The latter of these is not unreasonable, but I think that calling this "freedom" is stretching the defintion a little.
Yes. I know a wpord has multiple defintions. I was using it in the context of free as in "libre". The times I have used it to mean "free",I specified this. Then people start saying "well it is frere. It doesn't cost anything". I explained it, because I felt I had not made myself clear.
My initial point was that the FSF definition of free is misleading when it claims that it is "free as in speech", since it allows restrictions on that freedom. This is in response to the Linux zealots who claim that Linux is free, and Windows is not. This is true, only for specific definitions of free. It is not true in the sense that GPL allows full freedom.
You're saying the user of a GPL software does not have one or all of these freedoms?
NO!
I'm saying that the FSF's defintiion of free software is a very limited and arbitrary defintion of free, because it limits the freedom of the end user.
My point is that they used the word free for political purposes and then redefined it.
That is part of *the* definition of free, dickhead.
Nope. That is *a* definition
How do *you* define free such that BSD is not free?
According to the FSF, "'Free software' is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of 'free' as in 'free speech,' not as in 'free beer'". As I mentioned right at the top of this thread, Linux fits the free beer description.
The rest of the thread I was using "Free" in the context of liberty. Not price.
More like you are making up your own convenient definitions of "free" to suit your argument.
Well, I'm using the FSF's definition of free, which implies that the user is free to do what they want with it. Except, the user is not. Hence the FSF have redefined "free" for political reasons.
Alternatively, people argue that the code is free. This is in the sense of "unrestricted". Because the GPL applies restrictions on how the code may be used, it is not free in this sense.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but that's such a stupid argument, that you must be trolling me.
I will admit to being a little out of touch with the current version of X .
Oh but users of public domain code are not free to go and copyright it, therefore it isn't free by your arguments you retard.
They can copyright derived works though.
This entire thread is basically you contradicting yourself from start to finish in an attempt to make it seem like you've won the argument.
Nope. That's only half of it. The other half of it is other people coming up with stupid arguments to justify the "GPL is free" dogma.
How seamless is it?
My main problem with games in X is that I have to change the screen resolution myself. Most applications I'm quite happy with seeing in a window, but games I want full screen, often at a much lower resolution. I also want cutscenes to be displayed fullscreen.
Does this solve that problem?
I think I'll rephrase in terms you might unsderstand.
GPL code is not fucking free you fucking fucker. This is because the user is fucking not free to use it how he fucking wants to. Got that, fuckwit? If my fucking freedom is fucking restricted, then what is the fucking point is having free fucking code?
Fucking Linux zealots like you insist that linux is fucking free, as though that somehow makes it any fucking better, and then when challenged on how free it is, fucking insult anyone who fucking questions their fucking dogma, and really get nasty if anyone want to use their fucking code in a way the fucking disapprove of.
You really are a piece of work.
You respond to my comments fuming with anger and abuse.
I mean, why does it matter to you? You're acting as though whether the code is free is the most important thing in the world.
Do you really care? Do you really think I care? Do you really think that your arguments are as indestructable as you're making out?
Is it really worth getting so agitated?
Do you think that anyone else is listening, apart from myself and the people laughing at you?
Anyone else would have given up a long time ago.
YHBT. YHL. HAND.
No, no you still don't get it. You fucking stupid fucker. A word doesn't have multiple definitions, it has *one* definition. That definition may include multiple meanings depending on the context.
You are most strange. And you really need to calm down. I'm surprised how much this matters to you. I'm also surprised at your limited vocabulary. A word can have multiple defintions. Many do. This is why, for example, dictionaries offer multiple defintitions for many words. And even if you do think I'm wrong, and don't like the word "definition", I'll just say that a word can have multiple meanings.
No you didn't specify this. Someone else told you to go and look it up in the dictionary after you stuck both your feet in your mouth.
Well, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear with the very first comment in this thread, where I said that Linux is only free as in beer. Perhaps I should clarify my position.
Linux is free, but only in cost. The idea that Linux gives users freedom is a flawed argument, since there are restrictons on that freedom. The argument that the *code* is at liberty is also flawed, since it has many constraints on how it may be used.
What??? You make no sense. "restrictions on that freedom".
Exactly. If something is restricted, it is not free. Hence the sentence is self contradictory.
I am free (as in speech) allowed to create, modify and distribute code under the GPL. *You* are not allowed to do whatever you want with that, but that is no restriction on *my* freedom or the *code's* freedom.
Yes it is. Maybe not your freedom, because you on't want to do anything you're not allowed to do. The code's freedom certainly. It prevents me from using Linux code in BSD.
GPL code isn't confined. It places restrictions on its *users*, yes. Nobody is claiming it doesn't. The whole point of the GPL is to clarify those restrictions.
This is very surreal. You seem to be claiming that the code is free to to do what it wants as though it has free will.
If the user isn't free to do what he wants to do with the code, then the code isn't free. You might as well claim that CDs are free music. You can use them however you like. You can even sell them. The only restrictions are on copying them, where there are certain restrictions. But it's a stupid argument. The music isn't free, because there are restrictions on people who want to copy and distribute it.
And GPLed code isn't free, because there are restrictions on how it may be copied and distributed.
Oh, and what is it with the whole "Fuck off" thing. It really is quite pathetic.
No, I am not going to fuck off, just because you tell me to. If you think that I will, you really must be the biggest idiot.
But really, this has been apparent fot this entire thread. GPL apologists are delightfully naive when they parrot the FSF party line. And then get it wrong.
The problem is with "free distribution". The GPL does not permit unrestricted distribution. There is a clause insisitng that you have to distrubute source code.
Also, from the open source inititative's defintion, "License Must Not Restrict Other Software". The GPL does restrict other software. Non GPLed source code may not be distributed in an application where it is linked with GPLed software.
And the user does have all these freedoms, including the right to modify the software.
Indeed they have.
But she/he/it doesn't have unlimited rights of redistributing it (since if SHIT does, SHIT must make the source code available to the recipient, too).
Yes. That's the point. This means it can't be used with BSD code.
Any way, giving copies away is not what a user does, but a distributor. The point that a distributor may also be a user is incredibly irrelevant.
A distributer is, legally speaking, a user. Anyone who copies it uses it.
No, and this is the mistake you continue to make. The fact that you can do this makes you more free, but it doesn't imply anything about the freedom of the code.
It's not a mistake.
The code is more free, because it can be used more freely. It has fewer restrictions. I think that makes it more free.
One can't limit, restrain, or *confine* GPL code.
Nor can you can confine code derived from it. You are not free to do so.
You can confine BSD code.
You can only confine code derived from BSD code. The fact that it lets you do this makes it more free.
BSD code isn't free" means that it isn't free for any meaning of the word. You don't seem to have a solid grasp on the English language and/or basic logic skills, so you must have something wrong with you.
No. I say that it isn't free in a specific sense because there are restrictions on how it may be used.
BTW. GPL code is also free because it can't be confined.
Free does not mean "Can't be confined". It means "Isn't confined". However, it is. This has prevented GPLed code from being used in BSD.
I'm so sorry to hear that you are at death's door. I hope you have your affairs in order.
You also said this Well, I'm using the FSF's definition of free, which implies that the user is free to do what they want with it.. Everything you've said is a load of shit and you're trying to reposition yourself and make stuff up to save face. You sicken me. Please fuck off.
Ah. Right. I think I'll call you Mr.Fuckoff. There are so many ACs here, it's difficult to keep track.
You are quite right in that I have mistakenly misrepresented my meaning. Sadly, we are not all incapable of making mistakes.
What I mean to say is that the FSF's says that claims that software is free in the sense that the user has freedom to use it as he chooses. However, they follow this, with a definition that allows people to restrict this freedom.
I'm sure you are an expert, seeing as you are so good at redifinging things. I don't suppose you'd like to point to any evidence that they have redefined the word free.
I point you to this thread
Oh, do pay attention.
Are you the same AC who I responded to earlier who is incapable of following the thread, and understanding that when I say "free" I mean in the sense of "freedom" and not price?
If you did that, then it would not be free anymore.
You'd still have the original code to do stuff with.
So why would you want to?
Some people really don't mind that other people can use their code without giving back. Other people think that if people use their code, then they can return the favour.
The latter of these is not unreasonable, but I think that calling this "freedom" is stretching the defintion a little.
But "free software" in the context of liberty, then GPL software is free software because it cannot be constrained.
But it can be. In fact it is. It can't be used in a number of ways. Hence it is not free.
Huh?
What are you on?
Yes. I know a wpord has multiple defintions. I was using it in the context of free as in "libre". The times I have used it to mean "free",I specified this. Then people start saying "well it is frere. It doesn't cost anything". I explained it, because I felt I had not made myself clear.
My initial point was that the FSF definition of free is misleading when it claims that it is "free as in speech", since it allows restrictions on that freedom. This is in response to the Linux zealots who claim that Linux is free, and Windows is not. This is true, only for specific definitions of free. It is not true in the sense that GPL allows full freedom.
You're saying the user of a GPL software does not have one or all of these freedoms?
NO!
I'm saying that the FSF's defintiion of free software is a very limited and arbitrary defintion of free, because it limits the freedom of the end user.
My point is that they used the word free for political purposes and then redefined it.
That is part of *the* definition of free, dickhead.
Nope. That is *a* definition
How do *you* define free such that BSD is not free?
According to the FSF, "'Free software' is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of 'free' as in 'free speech,' not as in 'free beer'". As I mentioned right at the top of this thread, Linux fits the free beer description.
The rest of the thread I was using "Free" in the context of liberty. Not price.
Yes, BSD is free ny that definition as well.
More like you are making up your own convenient definitions of "free" to suit your argument.
Well, I'm using the FSF's definition of free, which implies that the user is free to do what they want with it. Except, the user is not. Hence the FSF have redefined "free" for political reasons.
Alternatively, people argue that the code is free. This is in the sense of "unrestricted". Because the GPL applies restrictions on how the code may be used, it is not free in this sense.
It is. It costs nothing so it is free, trivially by definition.
I agree that Linux is free by this definition. I always have done. Because it is.