What good is having "free code" available to the users if half of that code can be changed and made non-free at any point in the user.
It can't. Sure, I can rtake it, and not release source code, but it prevent anyone else from doing so.
Because I'm totally sick to the fucking back teeth of people who refuse to grasp simple concepts and then bleat about it as though they're the only person in the world who has discovered this dirty little "secret" about the GPL because, gosh darn it!, the GPL isn't really free! Sick to the back teeth.
It's no secret. "The GPL is free" is dogma. Lots of people know it, but the Linux zealots carry on bleating about how Linux is free.
No, I don't have cerebral palsy. My point is that if you're goping to claim one type of code is free and another isn't, you're drawing an arbitrary line, and redefining the word "free" to fit your arguments.
The BSD license puts restrictions on use too, you know? So how is BSD license free while GPL not?
Free in that context means the *code* is free. It does NOT mean anyone is free to do what they please with it.
You mean like Microsoft's source code?
If you'd prefer to play the idiotic analogies-that-don't-prove-anything game...
I'd rather not. I haven't used an analogy apart from the oft parroted "Free as in speech" one. Your analogy is stupid. Freedom of people and freedom of code are totally different. Code can't be free in that respect. It has no free will
The BSD zealot line about GPL not being free is retarded. For God's sake I *know* that the GPL doesn't give everyone the 'freedom' to take my code, close it and sell it. That is exactly why I use it. I want my *code* to be free as in can't-be-locked-up-and-sold free. In this sense, BSD licensed code is less free than GPL licensed, but you don't hear any stupid petty rants from the GPL community.
I never did and nor did anyone else, until you piped up with your done-to-death "Ohh, but the GPL isn't free!" whine. We don't care if you can't do what you like with the code. Go away.
I'll go away when people stop saying "Waaah! The code is free", when it clearly isn't.
Go on then, what are you waiting for? Why are you hanging around here trying to troll with lame ass decade old flamebait that isn't even clever? Go roll that ever so free BSDL code into your super-dooper-make-money-fast application I have no doubt you're working on right now.
Apart from some Ogg code, most of my stuff is homebuilt.
The real beauty is that if I modify the BSD stuff, I can contribute those changes back without having to release all my code under the same licence.
Yes. Very clever. You've made a pedantic observation which completely ignores the actual point.
Perhaps I should have put the word "legally" in there. I simply assumed that people here were intelligent enough not to need every litle trivial technicality spelled out.
It is perhaps free as in beer, but free as in speech?
If it was, then I'd be able to take parts of it, mix it with my own proprietry code, and sell it without having to oblige recipients to distribute the source if they want to distribute the compiled code.
Capitol Records is not liable if it does not or if it damages any CD players, computers, peripherals, or data.
Is this safe, or legal? I'm sure it's not legal to disclaim liability for damage caused by typical usage. And they make it quite clear that playing it on a computer is an expected way of using it.
It looks like they may be proving liability by disclaiming it.
Slashdot Mirror
You clearly aren't reading the posts. It went more like this:
GPL code isn't "free".
You just want to profit from it, so therefore you're evil.
So it's not free then
Hi, I'm a different AC, and I'm going to throw in a non sequiteur about it being about freedom of the code.
The people whop coined the phrase appear to disagree with you.
I don't care about them. It's about freedom of the code
Well what does that mean then?
Have a look at dictionary.com
It doesn't fit that definition.
Public domain.
You can release your code.
It is free.
Other people can't steal it, because even if they do release software derived from it, your original code is still in the public domain.
If you want to prevent others from doing something with it by using copyright, it is no longer free.
What good is having "free code" available to the users if half of that code can be changed and made non-free at any point in the user.
It can't. Sure, I can rtake it, and not release source code, but it prevent anyone else from doing so.
Because I'm totally sick to the fucking back teeth of people who refuse to grasp simple concepts and then bleat about it as though they're the only person in the world who has discovered this dirty little "secret" about the GPL because, gosh darn it!, the GPL isn't really free! Sick to the back teeth.
It's no secret. "The GPL is free" is dogma. Lots of people know it, but the Linux zealots carry on bleating about how Linux is free.
You've convinced me that BSD code isn't free.
And I still don't have cerebral palsy.
OK, so in what way is BSD free and GPL not free? Keep in mind BSD places restrictions on usage.
BSD isn't free either.
No, I don't mean that. Are you a spastic?
No, I don't have cerebral palsy. My point is that if you're goping to claim one type of code is free and another isn't, you're drawing an arbitrary line, and redefining the word "free" to fit your arguments.
The BSD license puts restrictions on use too, you know? So how is BSD license free while GPL not?
Good point. BSD code isn't free either.
You have been proven wrong. Fuck off.
What makes you say that?
Not imprisoned or enslaved; being at liberty.
There are many restrictions. GPLed code is not at liberty.
Costing nothing; gratuitous: a free meal.
Yes. I agree in that respect.
You can't "imprison or enslave" source code.
As for "Liberty":
The condition of being free from restriction or control.
The rest seem to apply to people being free. It would be a stretch to use them for code.
What the fuck? Now you bring the FSF into this?
I thought everyone used their definition of "free".
Before you were just proven wrong and an imbicile, you (for some reason) took issue with people saying that GPL code is free.
Proven wrong? Don't remember that happening. Violently disagreed with, perhaps.
You're really clutching at straws here buddy. I thought you promised to fuck off when that free code thing was cleared up?
I think I said, 'I'll go away when people stop saying "Waaah! The code is free", when it clearly isn't'.
If that means I have to cramp your style and oh my God! restrict your "freedom" then thats fine with me.
That's fine by me as well. Just don't pretend you're doing me a favour.
With GPL, THE. CODE. IS. FREE.
So I've heard. What does that mean?
Now would you like to fuck off, or for me to put it in simpler terms for you?
Yes please. Perhaps you could start with your definition of "free". It's rather ambiguous.
Free in that context means the *code* is free. It does NOT mean anyone is free to do what they please with it.
You mean like Microsoft's source code?
If you'd prefer to play the idiotic analogies-that-don't-prove-anything game...
I'd rather not. I haven't used an analogy apart from the oft parroted "Free as in speech" one. Your analogy is stupid. Freedom of people and freedom of code are totally different. Code can't be free in that respect. It has no free will
The BSD zealot line about GPL not being free is retarded. For God's sake I *know* that the GPL doesn't give everyone the 'freedom' to take my code, close it and sell it. That is exactly why I use it. I want my *code* to be free as in can't-be-locked-up-and-sold free. In this sense, BSD licensed code is less free than GPL licensed, but you don't hear any stupid petty rants from the GPL community.
So it isn't free then.
I never did and nor did anyone else, until you piped up with your done-to-death "Ohh, but the GPL isn't free!" whine. We don't care if you can't do what you like with the code. Go away.
I'll go away when people stop saying "Waaah! The code is free", when it clearly isn't.
Go on then, what are you waiting for? Why are you hanging around here trying to troll with lame ass decade old flamebait that isn't even clever? Go roll that ever so free BSDL code into your super-dooper-make-money-fast application I have no doubt you're working on right now.
Apart from some Ogg code, most of my stuff is homebuilt.
The real beauty is that if I modify the BSD stuff, I can contribute those changes back without having to release all my code under the same licence.
The FSF says it's about the user's freedom. Then goes on to talk about how restricting the user makes it possible to give him those freedoms.
Why do you persist in personal abuse? It's generally considered to indicate immaturity and an uncertainty of ones own opinions.
Well, explain to this "thick BSD user" (who has rarely if ever actually used BSD) what "Free" means.
Britney Spears songs aren't free either.
Neither is Microsoft Windows.
Neither is Linux.
But Microsoft do not claim Windows is free, and Britney doesn't claim her songs are free.
Free as in "The damn code is Free and remains that way" not Free as in "Whiny little bitch freeloaders like you arn't free to do as you please".
Exactly. Whiney little bitch freeloaders like me can do what we plase with BSD licenced code and public domain stuff. That's because it's free.
If you want to release under the GPL, that's your choice. Just don't start making out it's "Free as in speech. You can do what you want with it".
I don't care about whether I can do this or not.
Just pointing out that unless I'm permitted to do so, it isn't "free", and GPL enthusiasts should stop parroting the EFF party line.
Yes. Very clever. You've made a pedantic observation which completely ignores the actual point.
Perhaps I should have put the word "legally" in there. I simply assumed that people here were intelligent enough not to need every litle trivial technicality spelled out.
It is perhaps free as in beer, but free as in speech?
If it was, then I'd be able to take parts of it, mix it with my own proprietry code, and sell it without having to oblige recipients to distribute the source if they want to distribute the compiled code.
Arthur C Clarke must have a pretty bad idea of the alphabet if he denies that one
oooh. +1 Pedantic.
Probably because Arthur C Clarke has been denying this for years.
But.. they're a double act! You can't have one without the other. It would be like putting Stan Laurel on his own in a comedy greats display.
Capitol Records is not liable if it does not or if it damages any CD players, computers, peripherals, or data.
Is this safe, or legal? I'm sure it's not legal to disclaim liability for damage caused by typical usage. And they make it quite clear that playing it on a computer is an expected way of using it.
It looks like they may be proving liability by disclaiming it.