What kind of moron are you? He committed a crime! He broke the law! You just want to let him off the hook? Great idea, then I'll hack NASA just for the hell of it and get off to! Great idea, dumbass.
What the hell? He broke the law! And you want to give him an award, some money, a party, and a job? No, no, no. He did the crime, he can do the time! Criminals shall not be rewarded.
A lot of stuff mentioned on Slashdot isn't worth mentioning on Slashdot. And I'm talking the front page and all the sections, in addition to the comments.
Plan 9 is NOT a microkernel. Also, it's open source. So, unless you're some insane moron who cares more about politics of licenses than technology, you should have no problem using it.
Re:Restricting Free (as in speech) Software
on
P2P vs. The Clones
·
· Score: 1
And yet millions still persist in calling it a free software license. Why's that?
They don't know any better. Within the GNU community, no one brings up anything anti-GNU. If the facts do not support the theory, they must be destroyed -- GNU foundation marching song.
When you look at WHAT the restricitions say, they merely say a tiny minority of GPL'ed software users - the distributers and modifiers - aren't allowed to place restrictions on the vast majority of GPL'ed software users - the people who run the software.
The distributers and modifiers don't need to place any restrictions. The GPL comes loaded with them. You keep trying to diminish this fact. Sweep it under the rug, you know?
Oh and:
"My problem is with people like you decide to run around, spreading misinformation about the GPL -- That is that it provides freedom."
"Or even under the ultra-fascist GPL?"
If saying that the GPL provides freedom is misinformation, what exactly is it when you call the GPL 'Ultra-Fascist'?
It is ultra-fascist. Licensing code under the GPL implies dictatorship.
All of whom distribute GPLed software. The FreeBSD and OpenBSD groups certainly won't distribute software they don't consider free. I haven't looked at the policies of the NetBSD people. I'll strike them off the list of the GPL enemies list, shall I?
They distribute GPL'd software when they have no other choice. Just because they distribute GPL'd code doesn't mean they agree with the GPL. None of them would dare license their code under the GPL. They know better. All 3 BSDs do whatever they can to rip anything GPL'd from their operating systems.
I think I'll leave this thread here, we've gone round in circles long enough, methinks. Thanks for the trollin', it was a fairly decent mental exercise.
Nice to know you think someone is trolling when they disagree with your views.
Re:Restricting Free (as in speech) Software
on
P2P vs. The Clones
·
· Score: 1
Aaah right. Well yes, the EULA provides a small amount of freedoms in that sense, just as the GPL provides a small amount of restrictions. You can do nothing to EULA-ed software except run it and even then with some severe restrictions and in this straw man example, you expect me to pick out those bits and say it's 'freedom'.
But that's not my way of thinking, it's closer to YOUR way of thinking. I look at the whole EULA and say it's mostly unfree. Just as I look at the whole GPL, and say it's mostly unrestricted - you can do anything to GPL'ed software except for a restriction on distributing it as non-GPL'ed software. You look at the GPL and pick out the one smallish restriction through a magnifying glass and complain about the lack of freedom, just like in straw-man-world you'd expect me to pick out the tiny bit of freedom in a EULA.
GPL providing small amount of restrictions? Sounds like your way of thinking. Anyone who looks at the GPL can see that it's unfree. Most of the license is devoted to laying out restrictions. It's encumbered by them. You may sum it up as one or two restrictions, but it goes deeper than that. It goes down to the core of the GPL. A core wrapped in a sheet with the words "Freedom" printed on it. A nice slap-in-the-face lie.
I'd agree that the EULA is pretty much unfree. However, if you think the GPL is in any way "free" than the EULA must be free also since they both provide nothing more than a small amount of freedom and a boat load of restrictions.
Wrong answer. I said *keep* the software free. The minute you release BSD code, someone can come along and embrace/extend it slightly and turn it into fascist EULA-ware. You see? Lift that restriction, it turns into proprietary software. You might think that's good, that's between you and your rabbi/witchdoctor/conscience or whatever. I was showing that the GPL contains only the minimum restrictions necessary to preserve software as free or open source software, and I don't think you can argue with that.
Do you see that I don't care if someone takes my code and releases it as some EULA software? Or even under the ultra-fascist GPL? It doesn't matter to me. I know this going in when I license it under the BSD. When true freedom is achived, there will be abuse. You must accept it to have freedom. Any restrictions denies the very essence of freedom. And so, the GPL cannot be viewed as "freedom" despite what you hear from the GNU foundation.
You see, that's the great thing about the BSD license. You don't have to worry about all these restrictions and claims of false freedom put fourth by the GNU foundation. The GPL denies the freedom of others so you can retain yours. It's not freedom, it's not even close.
I can't argue with the fact that the GPL is completely made up of restrictions designed to propagate itself through the world. However, I can view that for what it is: Unfree. I still don't know why you fail to this. Perhaps out of fear or conformity.
If Microsoft made decent modifications that other people find useful, then yes, of course, *BSD would gain something - better code, or at least and alternative way of doing something. It's not impossible for Microsoft to make good code, you know. Only a rabid anti-M$er would think otherwise.
I strongly disagree. Just because a company modifies the software doesn't mean the creator wants it back. PostgreSQL is an open source database released under the BSD license. A commerical company has added replication to the database, a much requested feature yet to see its way into the open source version. The PostgreSQL community isn't pounding down the companys door, begging for the code to be released. They are fine with it. They fully understand what freedom is. When you actually hold your morals at a high value, it's easy to understand why that is so important.
Trickier since MS's current business model depends on secret source code, but if that hurdle
Re:Restricting Free (as in speech) Software
on
P2P vs. The Clones
·
· Score: 1
You should brush up on your reading comprehension skills. I defined 'free software' the way everyone here defines free software - software that is freely modifiable, runnable, examinable and redistributable. An EULA usually provides only one of those freedoms and is therefore totally unfree.
As should you. I clearly said that the EULA provides freedom, not becomes free software. There's a difference.
You're using 'free software' in a manner inconsistent with the way almost everyone else here uses it. If you're going to talk here, it helps if we speak the same language.
The argument isn't about "free software." It's about one license, the GPL, and how it doesn't follow through on it's claims of providing freedom.
Funnily enough, the Open Source people like using the GPL too. They just don't happen to use the word 'free' as much, since businessmen don't like freedom and 'free' is, unfortunately, ambiguous in English. The software and licenses that the Free Software and Open Source people use are identical.
Not those that I know. They hate the GPL for obvious reasons. They strongly advocate against it. Perhaps you should adventure outside of the Linux and GNU safety bubbles and meets those who have differing opinions. It makes life interesting.
Look we're never going to agree, but I'll stop thinking you're some sort of proprietary troll if you can tell me one restriction of the GPL that isn't absolutely neccesary to keep that software free or open source in the FSF/OSI/Debian sense (take your pick).
I can do that since you didn't say "neccesary to keep that software free as defined by FSF." All I have to do is point to the BSD license, an OSI approved license. Anything more than what it lines out isn't needed to adhere to the Open Source definition.
No matter which bit of the GPL you make less restrictive, you'll always end up with someone, somewhere, being able to slap a EULA on it and deprive a hapless user somewhere in the world of his freedom. That's the sole purpose of the GPL. It prevents GPL'ed code being proprietarised and no more.
But who says that's a bad thing? What if Microsoft cleaned up its act by using OpenBSD code to increase security? Or used FreeBSD code to increase stability? Would that be a bad thing? Of course not. In fact, it would be a great thing. Would OpenBSD or FreeBSD gain anything by having Microsofts modifications published? Probably not. Would Microsoft gain anything by publishing its modifications? Probably not.
Forcing them to release their modifications is pointless so why do it? In the name of what the GNU foundation labels as "freedom"? Give me a break.
You might not like being told you can't slap a EULA on someone else's code, but if you're wanting to start some sort of anti-GPL freedom crusade based on that, then I don't reckon you're going to get many followers - I think most people here can see that the logical conclusion of getting rid of the GPL is just to relegate free software to being embraced, extended, proprietarised and reduced to some sort of ham-radio type hobby instead of the mass social movement/competitive industry that it now happens to be. Maybe you want that. Fair enough.
There are many people out there who agree with my views and would like to see the world de-GNU'd. It's just so on Slashdot and other strong Linux communities, that isn't so.
Re:Restricting Free (as in speech) Software
on
P2P vs. The Clones
·
· Score: 1
No. The 'Freedom' of the GPL is the freedom to run, copy, distribute, and modify code. The 'freedom' you're banging on about is the freedom to use other people's work to make code that isn't free in those other four senses. Next you'll be telling me that we don't live in a free country because it's illegal to lock random strangers in the basement of a house that someone else built. "I should be free to take away other people's freedom, using other people's property!"
No, the freedom I'm "banging" on about is actual freedom. You seem to ignore this and redefine what freedom is. Anything under an EULA provides "freedom", according to you. After all, if you pay for it you are free to use it. As with the GPL, you can't redistribute the software at will, but I guess that's the price of freedom.
I understood you the first time and you're wrong. I said that the software AS A WHOLE must be licensed under the GPL, since that's the only way of preventing the GPL'ed code that you didn't write from becoming proprietary software. But individual parts of that software, such as lines of code or files that you yourself wrote, can be under a different license. The code you add to the GPL'ed code merely has to be under a GPL-compatible license for it to be bundled in a GPL'ed app. There's a big list of GPL-compatible licenses on the FSF site for you to choose from.
But licensing it as a whole already infects the software with the GPL. Redistributing the software already has to adhere to a number of restrictions. My code, if licensed under a truly free license, can be pulled out but that's not the issue.
The onerous laundry list of heinous restrictions that is destroying your freedom reads thus: 1) You aren't allowed to change the license on my code 2) When you give people copies of my code, give people the source code to whatever you gave them. 3) Erm... 4) that's it.
That is the problem. It removes freedom, it restricts what can and cannot be done with/to the software. Why you fail to understand this is beyond me.
Firstly, I've already said that you're not forced to license the code that you wrote under the GPL.
Secondly, you are using the word 'free' in a way which is completely contrary to the manner in which the whole of the free software community uses it. The GPL is a free software license. There are definitions of what constitute 'free software' all over the place.
It frankly amazes me how gung-ho you are about the right to make non-free software. Why do you bother with the free software movement at all, if the most important freedom to you is the ability to make proprietary software?
But you're wrong, in part. If I were to modify GPL code, that code must be under the GPL. And as you said, if I took GPL'd code, put into another piece of software, that software as a whole must be under the GPL. As a result, freedom has been lost.
Secondly, the GNU software foundation uses the term "freedom" is a way which completely destroys the meaning of the word. How can there be freedom when we are being dominated and restricted?
I don't bother with the free software movement at all. You people are nuts. You brandish the word "freedom" about in an attempt to con people into using your software. No part of the GPL provides any freedom. All it does is restrict what you can and cannot do with the software. Frankly, the GPL is a virus. Anything it touches must become infected, says so right in the license.
The open source movement is a different story.
Is 'free software' to you just a big supply of other people's work that you can put in a box and sell it with an EULA full of fascist licensing restrictions?
Not at all. The GPL does a good job of already applying "fascist licensing restrictions."
Re:Restricting Free (as in speech) Software
on
P2P vs. The Clones
·
· Score: 1
The GPL does the absolute minimum necessary to prevent GPL'ed code being turned into unfree software, and no more.
That's right. The license applies many restrictions to whatever software it touches. Glad we are on the same page. I'm guessing that somewhere in the GPL they redefine "Freedom" to mean "Restrictions".
As for restricting your labour, you misunderstand the GPL. It does nothing of the sort. You can license the code YOU wrote under any license you want, and if your software happens to be free software, you can distribute it with GPLed code.
You misunderstand what I said. If I used GPL'd code, I am forced to license my code under the GPL. Not under any OSI approved license, but the GPL itself. Anyone who then uses my code or redistributions my program has to adhere to a laundry list of requirements. Yes, I could and do choose not to use the GPL for obvious reasons.
The resulting software, as a whole, is a GPL'ed application, but your own code can be BSD, or public domain, or any GPL-compatible license if you like. If you bother to mark the BSD-licensed bits clearly enough, then Bill Gates himself can come along and take those and stick them into IE8 if he wants.
And why shouldn't Bill Gates be allowed to use the code if he wanted? Why discriminate against another group? I want my code to truly be free instead of locked away under a restrictive license.
YOUR labour isn't restricted in the slightest - the only restriction is what you do with the work of the guy who wrote the GPL'ed code, and the only restriction is that you can't do anything that can turn GPLed code into non-free software.
If I license my code under the GPL, it is restricted. That is non-free as in non-freedom.
Re:Restricting Free (as in speech) Software
on
P2P vs. The Clones
·
· Score: 1
GPL restricts freedom in multiple ways. Not only can you not make non-free software using GPL'd code, you cannot make non-GPL'd software. You must redistribute source code if you distribute a binary. So on and so fourth.
Anyone who bandies the word 'freedom' in order to restrict the rights of my labour is a hypocritical asshole.
Re:Restricting Free (as in speech) Software
on
P2P vs. The Clones
·
· Score: 1
We aren't talking about government here, no one is forcing you to use the GPL.
That's true in the sense I'm not forced to license something I create from scratch under the GPL. However, if you use any GPL'd code, you are forced to license it under the GPL. Distribute any GPL'd code (compiled or binary), and you must adhere to a list of requirements.
If you want to allow others to abuse you, thats fine, but not everyone agrees with you on that score.
True again. I take beef with the fact that GNU zealots run around screaming that the GNU provides freedom when nothing could be further from the truth. A big fat lie right on the GNU homepage: "Free as in Freedom".
The GPL's extra restrictions are there solely to insure the code *stays* free. Some see that as a restriction of the code's "liberty", as you do, others however see it as added protection for the code's "liberty", as I and others do.
But restricting the code in any such way, by defition, removes liberty.
As much as you hate this, this isn't going to change, and it certainly won't change with yet another GPL/FSF bashing rant on/. Use which license you want to, and stop annoying the ones who choose differently than you.
GNU foundation, and the open source community in general, should take your advice. GNU zealots think that everything should be GPL'd. The GPL license itself annoys anyone using or distributing licensed code. Open source zealots want a death to closed source software.
As I said above, my beef is with thinking that somehow the GPL license provides freedom. Unless you change the defintion of freedom (perhaps they redefine "freedom" somewhere in the license), that is simply a lie. The GPL is a lock-in device on multiple levels.
Re:Restricting Free (as in speech) Software
on
P2P vs. The Clones
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I'm reminded of this quote:
"The only freedom which counts is the freedom to do what some other people think to be wrong. There is no point in demanding freedom to do that which all will applaud. All the so-called liberties or rights are things which have to be asserted against others who claim that if such things are to be allowed their own rights are infringed or their own liberties threatened. This is always true, even when we speak of the freedom to worship, of the right of free speech or association, or of public assembly. If we are to allow freedoms at all there will constantly be complaints that either the liberty itself or the way in which it is exercised is being abused, and, if it is a genuine freedom, these complaints will often be justified. There is no way of having a free society in which there is not abuse. Abuse is the very hallmark of liberty." ~ Lord Chief Justice Halisham
In short, you cannot have freedom -- true freedom -- unless you allow what you see as abuse. The more and more the GNU foundation tries to restrict what people do with GPL'd license software (as they have done from moment one), the further they move away from freedom. The GNU foundation has never expressed freedom in anyway. They've always wanted to restrict and control, they just happen to do it while flashing the word "freedom".
Quite frankly, the GNU foundation has out right lied about what their license provides. Proof: "We recommend copyleft, because it protects freedom for all users [...]" Sorry, but copyleft licenses do not protect freedom, they restrict it.
The GPL license is no better than an EULA. Both take something away from whoever has the software. The GPL removes the right for closed source redistribution and choice of license if you use any GPL'd code. The EULA (and the like) removes access to the code and the ability to redistribute the program or code. You may see closed source redistribution as infringing on your rights. Closed source software sees the GPL as infringing on theirs.
The only true free-as-in-speech licenses are BSD-like licenses.
Uh... Actually, it's not GNU, it's a BSD licensed engine. Says so on the frontpage. Communism license (GPL) vs a true freedom license (BSD). BSD always wins.
Check out Plan 9 from Bell Labs. It was designed by some of the people who worked on the original UNIX. It was designed to fix the problems they saw with UNIX. However, it is not based on UNIX. It's a great little OS that is sadly little known.
You can also check out Inferno. It's a cousin of Plan 9. It keeps most of the ideas of Plan 9 while adding many that have since been ported back to Plan 9. It's a virtual machine that can run on top of OSes or natively on hardware. It has it's own language, Limbo, that runs in the virtual machine and is truly cross-platform.
You are missing the point: The compiler isn't actually faster. With SETI, Distributed.net, or whatever, each client isn't very fast, there just happens to be a lot of people using the client.
Compiling with -03 to drip 0.03% faster run time is not worth it. For most applications, the 10% difference between optimizations in GCC doesn't matter at all.
I'd take a quick compile over fast execution of code in most situations.
Reducing compile time by distributing the load isn't reducing it all, it's just distributing it. Try using a compiler that compiles fast -- such as Plan 9s compilers.
UNIX should be in there since Linux and all GNU software are direct clones of UNIX. Windows and Mac OS have their roots in the UNIX goo, even though they don't show it as well as Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
What kind of moron are you? He committed a crime! He broke the law! You just want to let him off the hook? Great idea, then I'll hack NASA just for the hell of it and get off to! Great idea, dumbass.
What the hell? He broke the law! And you want to give him an award, some money, a party, and a job? No, no, no. He did the crime, he can do the time! Criminals shall not be rewarded.
The Canadian government has declared internet connectivity to be (I forget the exact term) a "necessity" or something.
The thing about that is no one cares about Canada, you damn hippie.
Chick in skirts vs hobbit: What would you pick?
A lot of stuff mentioned on Slashdot isn't worth mentioning on Slashdot. And I'm talking the front page and all the sections, in addition to the comments.
Isn't the point of Chaos theory that you can't simulate everything? That you're always missing something?
Number two is correct and I don't think it suggets a lot of computing power. It's a simple table lookup. It's like a cache.
Hey, captain liberal! Get a clue!
Plan 9 is NOT a microkernel. Also, it's open source. So, unless you're some insane moron who cares more about politics of licenses than technology, you should have no problem using it.
GPL providing small amount of restrictions? Sounds like your way of thinking. Anyone who looks at the GPL can see that it's unfree. Most of the license is devoted to laying out restrictions. It's encumbered by them. You may sum it up as one or two restrictions, but it goes deeper than that. It goes down to the core of the GPL. A core wrapped in a sheet with the words "Freedom" printed on it. A nice slap-in-the-face lie.
I'd agree that the EULA is pretty much unfree. However, if you think the GPL is in any way "free" than the EULA must be free also since they both provide nothing more than a small amount of freedom and a boat load of restrictions.
Do you see that I don't care if someone takes my code and releases it as some EULA software? Or even under the ultra-fascist GPL? It doesn't matter to me. I know this going in when I license it under the BSD. When true freedom is achived, there will be abuse. You must accept it to have freedom. Any restrictions denies the very essence of freedom. And so, the GPL cannot be viewed as "freedom" despite what you hear from the GNU foundation.
You see, that's the great thing about the BSD license. You don't have to worry about all these restrictions and claims of false freedom put fourth by the GNU foundation. The GPL denies the freedom of others so you can retain yours. It's not freedom, it's not even close.
I can't argue with the fact that the GPL is completely made up of restrictions designed to propagate itself through the world. However, I can view that for what it is: Unfree. I still don't know why you fail to this. Perhaps out of fear or conformity.
I strongly disagree. Just because a company modifies the software doesn't mean the creator wants it back. PostgreSQL is an open source database released under the BSD license. A commerical company has added replication to the database, a much requested feature yet to see its way into the open source version. The PostgreSQL community isn't pounding down the companys door, begging for the code to be released. They are fine with it. They fully understand what freedom is. When you actually hold your morals at a high value, it's easy to understand why that is so important.
Forcing them to release their modifications is pointless so why do it? In the name of what the GNU foundation labels as "freedom"? Give me a break.
There are many people out there who agree with my views and would like to see the world de-GNU'd. It's just so on Slashdot and other strong Linux communities, that isn't so.But you're wrong, in part. If I were to modify GPL code, that code must be under the GPL. And as you said, if I took GPL'd code, put into another piece of software, that software as a whole must be under the GPL. As a result, freedom has been lost.
Secondly, the GNU software foundation uses the term "freedom" is a way which completely destroys the meaning of the word. How can there be freedom when we are being dominated and restricted?
I don't bother with the free software movement at all. You people are nuts. You brandish the word "freedom" about in an attempt to con people into using your software. No part of the GPL provides any freedom. All it does is restrict what you can and cannot do with the software. Frankly, the GPL is a virus. Anything it touches must become infected, says so right in the license.
The open source movement is a different story.Not at all. The GPL does a good job of already applying "fascist licensing restrictions."
GPL restricts freedom in multiple ways. Not only can you not make non-free software using GPL'd code, you cannot make non-GPL'd software. You must redistribute source code if you distribute a binary. So on and so fourth.
Anyone who bandies the word 'freedom' in order to restrict the rights of my labour is a hypocritical asshole.
As I said above, my beef is with thinking that somehow the GPL license provides freedom. Unless you change the defintion of freedom (perhaps they redefine "freedom" somewhere in the license), that is simply a lie. The GPL is a lock-in device on multiple levels.
In short, you cannot have freedom -- true freedom -- unless you allow what you see as abuse. The more and more the GNU foundation tries to restrict what people do with GPL'd license software (as they have done from moment one), the further they move away from freedom. The GNU foundation has never expressed freedom in anyway. They've always wanted to restrict and control, they just happen to do it while flashing the word "freedom".
Quite frankly, the GNU foundation has out right lied about what their license provides. Proof: "We recommend copyleft, because it protects freedom for all users [...]" Sorry, but copyleft licenses do not protect freedom, they restrict it.
The GPL license is no better than an EULA. Both take something away from whoever has the software. The GPL removes the right for closed source redistribution and choice of license if you use any GPL'd code. The EULA (and the like) removes access to the code and the ability to redistribute the program or code. You may see closed source redistribution as infringing on your rights. Closed source software sees the GPL as infringing on theirs.
The only true free-as-in-speech licenses are BSD-like licenses.
Uh... Actually, it's not GNU, it's a BSD licensed engine. Says so on the frontpage. Communism license (GPL) vs a true freedom license (BSD). BSD always wins.
You can also check out Inferno. It's a cousin of Plan 9. It keeps most of the ideas of Plan 9 while adding many that have since been ported back to Plan 9. It's a virtual machine that can run on top of OSes or natively on hardware. It has it's own language, Limbo, that runs in the virtual machine and is truly cross-platform.
Both can be downloaded freely.
You are missing the point: The compiler isn't actually faster. With SETI, Distributed.net, or whatever, each client isn't very fast, there just happens to be a lot of people using the client.
I'd take a quick compile over fast execution of code in most situations.
Reducing compile time by distributing the load isn't reducing it all, it's just distributing it. Try using a compiler that compiles fast -- such as Plan 9s compilers.
You're wrong about Sun. Sun has contributed more open source code than any organization, second only to Berkeley.
UNIX should be in there since Linux and all GNU software are direct clones of UNIX. Windows and Mac OS have their roots in the UNIX goo, even though they don't show it as well as Linux.
"...but a nifto OS that can combine a few computers and let me run stuff across them trivially?" They have that: Plan 9, Inferno, and Amoeba.