Ok, it is now clear what you mean. If google stops sending money under no conditions after some time, you can always use method X to get money instead. My point was not that google has power, but that google _will_ stop sending money under no conditions. Energy is therefore better invested in developing method X instead of drafting contracts with google.
I do not see why those who want that wikipedia stays ad-free believe that people have no power over their own lives. I do not see why they are weak minded. I do not see them blaming anyone for anything. Your post seems to be completely unrelated to the topic.
The following example might make my point clearer:
If anyone tells you that he things randomly killing people is morally acceptable, you would disagree and accuse him of being evil. Most people would do that. Now for stallman distributing non-free software might be as evil as killing someone, I do not know. But stallman delivering speeches saying "You shall not distribute or use free software" is not qualitatively different from a speech saying "You shall not kill". The only difference is that most people agree on the second one, but not the first.
You do not have to agree with Stallman on anything. But criticising him for actually having and expressing his opinions does not make any sense. I sometimes do criticise people for not having an opinion or not expressing it, never the other way around.
If you disagree with me on X, it is obivious that I will tell everyone that you are wrong on X. If I did not do so, what would be the point of even having an opinion on X?
You are confusing things. Bush uses his power to force his will on other people (or destroy them should they not comply).
Does Stallman do this? (Does he actually have any power?) I do not think so, but actually I do not know.
But accusing someone of having an immoral opinion on anything is a totally harmless (and in my opinion perfectly unquestionable) thing.
Whether something provides freedom really depends on your definition of freedom. I will come back to that later.
For now, let us call the restrictions that are attached to public domain software R_0, and the restrictions attached to GPL software R_1. You cannot have a R_0-type license that promotes itself, because you can derive software with more restrictions from R_0 software. The so-called "viral" nature of R_1 guarantees, that the mere presence of R_1-type induces the creation of more R_1-type software. R_1 is a subset of R_0, but if you only consider R_1 to be essential, R_1-type software is clearly more useful than R_0.
The only problem that could arise (and that is what everyone who hates the GPL fears), is that R_0 \ R_1 (essentially the ability to derive software without R_1) is not granted to you. The question is: should this be viewed as part of your fundamental freedoms?
You can talk about the "freedom to derive proprietary software from any code", but that is not really the point. You can also talk about the "freedom to kill random humans", but most people would not say that laws against murder take freedom away from anyone. The question really is, what are freedoms are fundamental, that is, what freedoms should everyone have?
This is a controversial subject, but we already know you can't just include everything in the set of fundamental freedoms (let us call it R_E), as we have seen with the law against murder. So you have to provide a reason, why something should be a fundamental freedom or not, just saying "I can't do X, so I am not free" is not valid, if X is unspecified.
Now comes one reason why I think that R_0\R_1 is not in R_E, but you may have arguments against it, so _please_ bring them in:
If you believe that R_0\R_1 is a fundamental freedom, and you distribute BSD software, you allow other people to engage in immoral behaviour. And that is actually the only additional freedom you get. Like distributing a knife that can kill people, when you can distribute a knife, that can do everything the other knife can except killing people. You cannot really do this with knives, but if you believe that killing people is an absolutely wrong thing, you should distribute those knives in that case. And that is what you (GPL-enemies) think: You believe that R_0\R_1 is fundamental, yet you distribute killing knives. If you _still_ believe that R_0\R_1 is fundamental, you have a paradox.
I think the right solution is to realize that R_0\R_1 is not in R_E, then you do not have the problem, and you lose no additional freedoms execept the paradoxical one. But in that case the GPL is clearly superior to BSD-variants. This is no proof that R_0\R_1 is not fundamental of course, but you will have to show me strong arguments, as why you still think that R_0\R_1 is a fundamental freedom, give the apparently paradoxical results that follow.
No, the "or any later version" clause is NOT in the GPL, it is what the FSF puts onto its own software (where not putting it doesn't make sense at all). You should not use it, if you're not the FSF:). The linux kernel does not, for example.
Say there is a program that can be used to kill people (like a control program that can fire rockets from homemade rocket launchers or whatever).
Whether I license it to you under the GPL or the BSD license doesn't matter, you will never get all the rights to do what you want with it (by your definition), because in most countries you may not kill people at will.
RMS-like supporters of the GPL think that giving software away under a non-free license should be outlawed, so the license just corrects something that isn't provided for in law for the respective piece of GPL'd software, and therefore the GPL doesn't deny you any right you should have.
Not true. The Copyright holder can license his software under any license he wants. That can be GPLv2 only, GPLv2 and something else, or even GPLv2 or any later version as published by the FSF.
You can license everything under GPLv2 *only*, just omit the "or any later version" from the FSF-Sourceheader template. (I do this as well)
On the other hand, it would be stupid if the FSF would not use GPLv2 _or later_ for software, where the FSF is the copyright holder. Because the FSF would never write a license they wouldn't license its own software under, they can safe a lot of editing, because they definitely would want to relicense everything under the GPLv3
This can easily be taken further. Noone can forbid you to share your experiences with other people.
So if you have *perfect memory* and a *perfect way to communicate* you can make everybode else relive the movie, too.
I was only talking about scientific theories. "Time travel is possible" is not a scientific theory, because it's not useful for making predictions. "If you do x, you will go back in Time" could be a scientific theory, but can not be proven.
Slashdot Mirror
Not carrying ID is perfectly legal. Not being in possession of (valid) ID is a misdemeanor in Germany.
Ok, it is now clear what you mean. If google stops sending money under no conditions after some time, you can always use method X to get money instead. My point was not that google has power, but that google _will_ stop sending money under no conditions. Energy is therefore better invested in developing method X instead of drafting contracts with google.
If you submit to someone you no longer control your own destiny by definition.
I do not see why those who want that wikipedia stays ad-free believe that people have no power over their own lives. I do not see why they are weak minded. I do not see them blaming anyone for anything.
Your post seems to be completely unrelated to the topic.
Yes, and after Wikipedia has become dependend on the income from Google they can start changing the policy as they wish.
A "crime" is not necessarily "bad".
The following example might make my point clearer: If anyone tells you that he things randomly killing people is morally acceptable, you would disagree and accuse him of being evil. Most people would do that. Now for stallman distributing non-free software might be as evil as killing someone, I do not know. But stallman delivering speeches saying "You shall not distribute or use free software" is not qualitatively different from a speech saying "You shall not kill". The only difference is that most people agree on the second one, but not the first.
You do not have to agree with Stallman on anything. But criticising him for actually having and expressing his opinions does not make any sense. I sometimes do criticise people for not having an opinion or not expressing it, never the other way around.
If you disagree with me on X, it is obivious that I will tell everyone that you are wrong on X. If I did not do so, what would be the point of even having an opinion on X? You are confusing things. Bush uses his power to force his will on other people (or destroy them should they not comply). Does Stallman do this? (Does he actually have any power?) I do not think so, but actually I do not know. But accusing someone of having an immoral opinion on anything is a totally harmless (and in my opinion perfectly unquestionable) thing.
The last "give" should read "given".
Whether something provides freedom really depends on your definition of freedom. I will come back to that later.
For now, let us call the restrictions that are attached to public domain software R_0, and the restrictions attached to GPL software R_1. You cannot have a R_0-type license that promotes itself, because you can derive software with more restrictions from R_0 software. The so-called "viral" nature of R_1 guarantees, that the mere presence of R_1-type induces the creation of more R_1-type software. R_1 is a subset of R_0, but if you only consider R_1 to be essential, R_1-type software is clearly more useful than R_0.
The only problem that could arise (and that is what everyone who hates the GPL fears), is that R_0 \ R_1 (essentially the ability to derive software without R_1) is not granted to you. The question is: should this be viewed as part of your fundamental freedoms?
You can talk about the "freedom to derive proprietary software from any code", but that is not really the point. You can also talk about the "freedom to kill random humans", but most people would not say that laws against murder take freedom away from anyone. The question really is, what are freedoms are fundamental, that is, what freedoms should everyone have?
This is a controversial subject, but we already know you can't just include everything in the set of fundamental freedoms (let us call it R_E), as we have seen with the law against murder. So you have to provide a reason, why something should be a fundamental freedom or not, just saying "I can't do X, so I am not free" is not valid, if X is unspecified.
Now comes one reason why I think that R_0\R_1 is not in R_E, but you may have arguments against it, so _please_ bring them in:
If you believe that R_0\R_1 is a fundamental freedom, and you distribute BSD software, you allow other people to engage in immoral behaviour. And that is actually the only additional freedom you get. Like distributing a knife that can kill people, when you can distribute a knife, that can do everything the other knife can except killing people. You cannot really do this with knives, but if you believe that killing people is an absolutely wrong thing, you should distribute those knives in that case. And that is what you (GPL-enemies) think: You believe that R_0\R_1 is fundamental, yet you distribute killing knives. If you _still_ believe that R_0\R_1 is fundamental, you have a paradox.
I think the right solution is to realize that R_0\R_1 is not in R_E, then you do not have the problem, and you lose no additional freedoms execept the paradoxical one. But in that case the GPL is clearly superior to BSD-variants.
This is no proof that R_0\R_1 is not fundamental of course, but you will have to show me strong arguments, as why you still think that R_0\R_1 is a fundamental freedom, give the apparently paradoxical results that follow.
Well, if you don't conform to it, maybe Stallman won't like you, but does that really harm you?
No, the "or any later version" clause is NOT in the GPL, it is what the FSF puts onto its own software (where not putting it doesn't make sense at all). You should not use it, if you're not the FSF :).
The linux kernel does not, for example.
1) Only the copyright holder can.
3) No.
Say there is a program that can be used to kill people (like a control program that can fire rockets from homemade rocket launchers or whatever).
Whether I license it to you under the GPL or the BSD license doesn't matter, you will never get all the rights to do what you want with it (by your definition), because in most countries you may not kill people at will.
RMS-like supporters of the GPL think that giving software away under a non-free license should be outlawed, so the license just corrects something that isn't provided for in law for the respective piece of GPL'd software, and therefore the GPL doesn't deny you any right you should have.
Not true. The Copyright holder can license his software under any license he wants. That can be GPLv2 only, GPLv2 and something else, or even GPLv2 or any later version as published by the FSF.
You can license everything under GPLv2 *only*, just omit the "or any later version" from the FSF-Sourceheader template. (I do this as well)
On the other hand, it would be stupid if the FSF would not use GPLv2 _or later_ for software, where the FSF is the copyright holder. Because the FSF would never write a license they wouldn't license its own software under, they can safe a lot of editing, because they definitely would want to relicense everything under the GPLv3
This can easily be taken further. Noone can forbid you to share your experiences with other people. So if you have *perfect memory* and a *perfect way to communicate* you can make everybode else relive the movie, too.
What theories are proven in ablute terms anyway?
There are no scientific facts. Only theories.
It uses '\' as path separator :(
Would anyone care to explain why the government can't give away music for free or what government competition means?
I meant C<<=1 of course. (slashdot html formatting)
Even better: C=1
http://www2.europarl.eu.int/omk/sipade2?L=EN&OBJID =97868&MODE=SIP&NAV=X&LSTDOC=N&LEVEL=1
Here. It's the first vote.
QT does use nonstandard C++?
I was only talking about scientific theories. "Time travel is possible" is not a scientific theory, because it's not useful for making predictions. "If you do x, you will go back in Time" could be a scientific theory, but can not be proven.