But he then pays Apple for an unneeded copy of OS X instead for a unneeded copy of Vista. I dont see much difference there, besides of course you being an apple fanboy and parroting "Get a Mac! Get a Mac!" on every fricking occasion. Shut the fuck up. There aer enough retailers selling machines with XP or without a operating system at all, your parent poster should just look around a little.
> because I know a portion of the proceeds will be used for suing women and children
And if it were only your fellow males, who get inanely sued for sharing, you wouldn't consider stopping buying CDs, even for a second?
Hows that always only women and children are considered some "war crimes", even if the number of slaughtered males vastly outnumbers them? Why the fuck does having a penis more or less make you a free game in any type of conflict, so random idiots like the GP dont consider you a victim any more at all?
> I guess in this case you are more free in China than in US. Isn't it something curiosal?
It isn't. The amount of censorship and persecution on "thought theft" in the US (and Western Europe, now they are making copyright infringement a criminal offence) may wery well exceed the amount of supressing of regime critic "thought crimes" in China & Co. China censors its citizens to conserve what they value the most, i.e. the ruling party, and the US censor theirs to conserve what they value the most, i.e. the concept of intellectual property, aka "write once, copyright, sell and sue for the next 150 years".
Wouldnt that be a collosal wste of time, money and human ressources better spent at something else?
And btw, they aren't "pirating" anything, they are sharing stuff that works for them with their fellow men. Why should it be their problem when some greedy-as-fuck overseas copyright fascists want to censor interpersonal communication and information exchage?
Talking about OS X being a "concieved and designed unit of hardware and software", and this applying only to OSX, is also bullshit. Apple just writes drivers for the hardware, or in many cases not even that. They dont "design" their software for this very specific hardware any more than any linux distro does. They just write fricking drivers, like everybody else working with electronic devices out there.
All they "design" their software for is how _NOT_ to work with any other hardware available on the market. They put more work in actually preventing it to work, than making it work. Every hardware vendor who offers computers with preinstalled systems isnt doing less "designing" on the hardware-software-interface than Apple.
Or you should ask yourself if anything like 1-Click (or anything else in the software world for which a patent was granted) was _SO UNBELIEVABLY GENIUS_ that really nobody else would come up with it in the next 20 years, as long as it would be "protected"?
The US are actually the best example that software patents are superfluous. If they werent, the number of software innovations coming out of the US would outnumber the rest of the world by hundreds or thousands each year. And all of these would happen to be patented innovations, since even in the US nobody would innovate without the possibility to patent it. So do you actually remember when you last time used an application a part of which was innovated only because it could be patented later and wouldnt exist without the patent system? And.... do you remember when you last used a innovative application where there were no patents to back it up?
The same as when Microsoft would say: "Well, we can't make a profit on Windows, or even break even, if we arent allowed to kill off any aspiring competition, so we're just going to shut down the whole project."
Nothing.
They can make profit on the lines, they just want to kill of the competition in order to make even more profits and gain a grip on the whole market. I just wonder how the German goverment actally approved of this lunacy, so they have to be attacked by the EU.
It isn't. The creationists have an already predefined "interpretation" they try to present as a proof because they do not _want_ to accept reality.
It may have been up to interpretation 500 years ago, when you just didnt know and didnt have a possibility to find out. Coming up with a deity as a answer to a question (like: "why does a lightning occur?") is a poor mans way to confess you dont know something.
The creationists on the other side nowadays have means to find it out, but they wont, because this would eqal admitting to themselves that they have been lying to themselves their whole superstitious life and during the whole existance of their religion. They wont because "god created man" is one of the latest straws available for religions to grasp at. There just isnt anything left to be explained by a heavenly influence.
Evidence by evidence everything that was once "created by god" is now proven to have simple and explainable natural causes. The lightning, the planet Earth, humans, and so on. Occams razor cuts god away piece by piece, so to speak. Evolution, and the evolution of man, is cutting off his head. I kinda can feel the sheer desperation of the creationists, because they _know_ they can not come winning out of this because the only scientific method they have up their sleeve is denial. They _know_ it, but they obviously chose to go under in denial instaed to just admitting they were wrong.
> If it requires anything more complex than "double click on setup.exe" or "double click on the program icon when you save it", > you've lost her completely and I have to tunnel in to her machine or make a 125 mile drive.
But you're not mentioning that she first has to find out that a certain program exists, then find out the website, download the correct exe, then remember where she downloaded it, dive through the windows file tree in case she didnt download it onto the desktop. And how actually does she uninstall it, if shes lost with anything besides a click on a setup.exe, when there isnt a "uninstall" link provided in the start menu after the installation?
In modern Linux: Installing: Fire up a package manager, scroll down to your app of choice, mark it for installation, apply, done. Uninstalling: Fire up a package manager, scroll down to your app of choice, mark it for uninstallation, apply, done.
Apart from the fact that she obviously wouldnt be able to install some windows-only software, it really doesnt get easier and more intuitive than "scroll, mark, apply, done."
> Like when you go to the dealership, you pick the car model, the engine, color and such.
When youre a newbie, and searchig for a Linus distro to check out, it isnt any different. You then either just pick the one you saw somwhere work nicely, or go with one of the widely recommended biggies: Fedora, Ubuntu, Suse. They mostly provide sane and easy to learn defaults, and do not confront the newbie with stuff like vi/emacs, kernels, shells and window managers unless he _deliberately_ looks after them.
Saying that the sole existance of some obscure sourcebased distro or window manager he wouldnt even be able to install is making the first choice to a newbie _SO_ difficult, that he shuns Linux alltogether, is like saying people would stop driving and buying automobiles, because of the existance of limousines, sport cars, monster trucks, forklifts, lawn tractors, and so on. You do not get confronted with those in a car dealership. You also dont get confronted with advanced level distros and apps wheny youre a newbie.
> it is also my right NOT to do so, but to sell it in any legal manner I choose!
And it is my right to copy your work once you publish it however i see fit, and to give it away to whom ever I want.
> Everything you say is an attempt to justify being a thief.
Copying is not a theft. You people started to call it so in order to make it sound worse than it is because nobody gives a fuck about your copyright.
Your "copyright" is not something you _have_ but something which was legally taken away from _me_, i.e. a right to copy something. With the introduction of copyright your situation as a author didnt change at all. You could copy something before and afterwards, but my and everybodys right to copy it was simply removed without the public actually ever being asked about this removal of their rights. If challenged democratically copyright wouldnt survive a single night because everybody would demand their right to copy back. This is the reason "copyright" as we know it was never approved democratically because the ones introducing it knew (and still know) it woudl never be adopted by a majority (only by a minority like you who can profit from such removal of public rights).
"Piracy" as you call it is getting _our_ copyrights back, download by download. Calling people "thieves" and "pirates" will actually not help you, but just lead to even less respect for "rights owners" and accelerate the erosion of the copyright system even more.
I'd suggest you get another job, maybe this time one where people actually want to pay for what you do, and not having a state force them into it by enforcing artificial scarcity. And if you cant adapt, you parasite, just die off. Thanks for reading.
> On the other hand, if Apple could get the big 4 to agree to drop DRM, they'd have enough clout that they could afford to make it > a requirement for everybody else.
And how would then the ITMS actually encourage more Ipod sales, which it was designed for, when _any_ other mp3 player out there could play the files bought from the ITMS? Wasnt the mantra not always "Apple doesnt make any mentionable profit with the ITMS, but it drives Ipod sales up"?
In most countries on this planet, an "agreeement" requires both sides to agree on something before the purchase. As of my knowledge, only the US enforce those "shrink wrap" agreements, where one side is able to _hide_ additional clauses in the box until the customer opens the box and then require the customer to bring the ware back (and silently hope hes to lazy to do that, aka "agreement by inertia").
Kind of: "Suprise suprise! You are not allowed to fell a tree with this MS hatchet(tm). Upgrade to MS Axe Pro(tm) today and chop away!"
Or: "Suprise suprise! You're not allowed to play with the toy from this Kinder Suprise (tm) you just opened. Upgrade to Kinder Suprise Premium today to enable additional capabilities of your product!"
I've never seen either a Windows or some other users correct me when I (god forbid!) dont type a case in their beloved trademark name correctly (or if i actually dont care). (How many times have you actually _seen_ somebody else getting corrected when he types vista instead of Vista??)
Its always the Apfel's typing nazis, too brainless to see whether its a MAC computer or a Mac address out of the context.
> If we would like the world outside the US and Western Europe to join the rest of the world
Since the US and Europe are 4 to 5 times smaller than everything else out there, they cant be seen as the "rest" of the world.
> people have to understand that even if there is no "physical object" it isn't correct to just copy it.
This is not a natural given fact of life, but a matter of principle and culture. If your culture does not restrict copying and your fellow man do not condone it, there is _NO_ obvious reason not to do it yourself.
This reason also never existed in the US and Europe, but only in recent times it was introduced as a legal construct _only_ and without any democratic backing. In the US and western europe everybody still would copy Windows without paying for it if.
So you are actually asking the rest of the world to remove their people habitual right to copy which existed for ages and to get down to the US and WE level of mass punishements and legal fear for something people will do anyway?
> Without some education
You sir, are an arrogant prick. Do you really believe the "educated" US citizens would respect copyright without constant legal threats and force against those who chose not to "respect" it?
> these people that just don't know they are doing something wrong will continue and teach children to grow up and violate copyright,
Copyright is, i repeat myself, not a natural law everybody instinctively understands. It has to be enforced _forcibly_ by the state, and this state of force and legal threat has to be held up, since the copyright system would collapse the very moment there is no more force to back it up.
It isn't since force (GPL) is applied only on the ones who try to take the freedom away. You dont force anybody _into_ freedom, you force people not to tiker wirh other peoples freedom.
Without using force your freedom wouldnt be equally distributed so in the practice you would end up with a less total amount of freedom then in theory.
Like you said, Google _pushes_ an massive amount of visitors _at their expense_ (since you actually do and pay nothing to get them) you othervise wouldnt even have. If you cant stay afloat without visitors another company sends in for free, your site should drop off dead.
> Google and other search engines are a huge part of running any business where you do not have a majority of the mindshare out > there.
They _became_ a part since people simply started to rely (heavily) (and now, even demand, of course, at no cost) on a service they do not pay a dime for.
Reminds me of this classical Bible story of Jonah and the gourd (http://www.carm.org/kjv/Jonah/Jonah_4.htm>):
Then said the LORD, Thou hast had pity on the gourd, for the which thou hast not laboured, neither madest it grow; which came up in a night, and perished in a night. And God said to Jonah, Doest thou well to be angry for the gourd?
And he said, I do well to be angry, even unto death.
No one would actually use it in, you know, where it matters, in trade. (Thats what a _trade_mark is for.) What a product is called by some fanboy on a message board is actually irrelevant, and not a way to extort a existing trademark from someone else.
A "defacto" trademark is gained by selling (or giving away) a product without registering it as a trademark, for the case someone registers it just for the purpose of extorting money from you or shutting you down.
So the few using the other OSes neet to develop something a system so outstanding and superior to the other, to impress all those driver hackers to port their drivers over. Obviously the BSDs do not impress the relevant device driver writers more than Linux, and Linux does not impress some other driver writers more than Windows. They seem both to be not impressive enough in the eyes of the people who have control over the actual hardware they want to run on. A simple "Build it too, and they will come" wont cut it, it has to be a "Build it so much better that they dont have an excuse any more, not to come."
> But according to Slashdot, copyright is evil and obsolete, and people who violate it are heroes who shouldn't be prosecuted. How > do you reconcile that with your statement about the GPL?
The GPL crweates an ecosystem where copyright is obsolete, so supporting the GPL does more "damage" to the copyright fascism, than simply ignoring some others unfree copyright.
Supporting the GPL is a clear stance against "traditional", restrictive copyright.
And also the main reason not a single desktop is distributed under this licence, and the systems using this licence never took off like the other one not using this licence.
> But as you grow up, it's time to eschew those childish ways and start acting like a responsible adult. > A responsible adult respects other peoples rights.
Not when you do not agree that your own rights (and the rights of the entire human civilisation) to copy and share information shouldn't be pruned to make those "rights" of the content creator possible in the first place.
> Why does GPLv3 have to be the correct license for everything?
Since almost any other free software licence tries to accomodate developers of unfree software, which is a Bad Thing for preserving the freeness of the software for future users.
Slashdot Mirror
But he then pays Apple for an unneeded copy of OS X instead for a unneeded copy of Vista. I dont see much difference there, besides of course you being an apple fanboy and parroting "Get a Mac! Get a Mac!" on every fricking occasion. Shut the fuck up. There aer enough retailers selling machines with XP or without a operating system at all, your parent poster should just look around a little.
> because I know a portion of the proceeds will be used for suing women and children
And if it were only your fellow males, who get inanely sued for sharing, you wouldn't consider stopping buying CDs, even for a second?
Hows that always only women and children are considered some "war crimes", even if the number of slaughtered males vastly outnumbers them? Why the fuck does having a penis more or less make you a free game in any type of conflict, so random idiots like the GP dont consider you a victim any more at all?
> I guess in this case you are more free in China than in US. Isn't it something curiosal?
It isn't. The amount of censorship and persecution on "thought theft" in the US (and Western Europe, now they are making copyright infringement a criminal offence) may wery well exceed the amount of supressing of regime critic "thought crimes" in China & Co.
China censors its citizens to conserve what they value the most, i.e. the ruling party, and the US censor theirs to conserve what they value the most, i.e. the concept of intellectual property, aka "write once, copyright, sell and sue for the next 150 years".
Wouldnt that be a collosal wste of time, money and human ressources better spent at something else?
And btw, they aren't "pirating" anything, they are sharing stuff that works for them with their fellow men. Why should it be their problem when some greedy-as-fuck overseas copyright fascists want to censor interpersonal communication and information exchage?
Talking about OS X being a "concieved and designed unit of hardware and software", and this applying only to OSX, is also bullshit. Apple just writes drivers for the hardware, or in many cases not even that. They dont "design" their software for this very specific hardware any more than any linux distro does. They just write fricking drivers, like everybody else working with electronic devices out there.
All they "design" their software for is how _NOT_ to work with any other hardware available on the market. They put more work in actually preventing it to work, than making it work. Every hardware vendor who offers computers with preinstalled systems isnt doing less "designing" on the hardware-software-interface than Apple.
Or you should ask yourself if anything like 1-Click (or anything else in the software world for which a patent was granted) was _SO UNBELIEVABLY GENIUS_ that really nobody else would come up with it in the next 20 years, as long as it would be "protected"?
The US are actually the best example that software patents are superfluous. If they werent, the number of software innovations coming out of the US would outnumber the rest of the world by hundreds or thousands each year. And all of these would happen to be patented innovations, since even in the US nobody would innovate without the possibility to patent it. So do you actually remember when you last time used an application a part of which was innovated only because it could be patented later and wouldnt exist without the patent system? And.... do you remember when you last used a innovative application where there were no patents to back it up?
The same as when Microsoft would say: "Well, we can't make a profit on Windows, or even break even, if we arent allowed to kill off any aspiring competition, so we're just going to shut down the whole project."
Nothing.
They can make profit on the lines, they just want to kill of the competition in order to make even more profits and gain a grip on the whole market. I just wonder how the German goverment actally approved of this lunacy, so they have to be attacked by the EU.
> it's all in the interpretation.
It isn't. The creationists have an already predefined "interpretation" they try to present as a proof because they do not _want_ to accept reality.
It may have been up to interpretation 500 years ago, when you just didnt know and didnt have a possibility to find out. Coming up with a deity as a answer to a question (like: "why does a lightning occur?") is a poor mans way to confess you dont know something.
The creationists on the other side nowadays have means to find it out, but they wont, because this would eqal admitting to themselves that they have been lying to themselves their whole superstitious life and during the whole existance of their religion. They wont because "god created man" is one of the latest straws available for religions to grasp at. There just isnt anything left to be explained by a heavenly influence.
Evidence by evidence everything that was once "created by god" is now proven to have simple and explainable natural causes. The lightning, the planet Earth, humans, and so on. Occams razor cuts god away piece by piece, so to speak. Evolution, and the evolution of man, is cutting off his head. I kinda can feel the sheer desperation of the creationists, because they _know_ they can not come winning out of this because the only scientific method they have up their sleeve is denial. They _know_ it, but they obviously chose to go under in denial instaed to just admitting they were wrong.
> If it requires anything more complex than "double click on setup.exe" or "double click on the program icon when you save it",
> you've lost her completely and I have to tunnel in to her machine or make a 125 mile drive.
But you're not mentioning that she first has to find out that a certain program exists, then find out the website, download the correct exe, then remember where she downloaded it, dive through the windows file tree in case she didnt download it onto the desktop. And how actually does she uninstall it, if shes lost with anything besides a click on a setup.exe, when there isnt a "uninstall" link provided in the start menu after the installation?
In modern Linux:
Installing: Fire up a package manager, scroll down to your app of choice, mark it for installation, apply, done.
Uninstalling: Fire up a package manager, scroll down to your app of choice, mark it for uninstallation, apply, done.
Apart from the fact that she obviously wouldnt be able to install some windows-only software, it really doesnt get easier and more intuitive than "scroll, mark, apply, done."
> Like when you go to the dealership, you pick the car model, the engine, color and such.
When youre a newbie, and searchig for a Linus distro to check out, it isnt any different. You then either just pick the one you saw somwhere work nicely, or go with one of the widely recommended biggies: Fedora, Ubuntu, Suse. They mostly provide sane and easy to learn defaults, and do not confront the newbie with stuff like vi/emacs, kernels, shells and window managers unless he _deliberately_ looks after them.
Saying that the sole existance of some obscure sourcebased distro or window manager he wouldnt even be able to install is making the first choice to a newbie _SO_ difficult, that he shuns Linux alltogether, is like saying people would stop driving and buying automobiles, because of the existance of limousines, sport cars, monster trucks, forklifts, lawn tractors, and so on. You do not get confronted with those in a car dealership. You also dont get confronted with advanced level distros and apps wheny youre a newbie.
> Mister fucking gates is donating money for polio vaccinations and malaria treatment.
Mister fucking Gates earns the money he then generously "donates" by sending off school teachers to some siberian Gulags for copying Windows.
If i had malaria and were about to die I wouldnt take blood money from Gates.
> As to the GPL -- there's a certain level of hypocrisy
Youre wrong, because it isn't.
> in saying "If you don't share it the way WE tell you to, then you can't share it at all."
The GPL doesnt say that.
The GPL says: "If you don't allow people you shared with to share with others, then you also can't share at all."
> it is also my right NOT to do so, but to sell it in any legal manner I choose!
And it is my right to copy your work once you publish it however i see fit, and to give it away to whom ever I want.
> Everything you say is an attempt to justify being a thief.
Copying is not a theft. You people started to call it so in order to make it sound worse than it is because nobody gives a fuck about your copyright.
Your "copyright" is not something you _have_ but something which was legally taken away from _me_, i.e. a right to copy something. With the introduction of copyright your situation as a author didnt change at all. You could copy something before and afterwards, but my and everybodys right to copy it was simply removed without the public actually ever being asked about this removal of their rights. If challenged democratically copyright wouldnt survive a single night because everybody would demand their right to copy back. This is the reason "copyright" as we know it was never approved democratically because the ones introducing it knew (and still know) it woudl never be adopted by a majority (only by a minority like you who can profit from such removal of public rights).
"Piracy" as you call it is getting _our_ copyrights back, download by download. Calling people "thieves" and "pirates" will actually not help you, but just lead to even less respect for "rights owners" and accelerate the erosion of the copyright system even more.
I'd suggest you get another job, maybe this time one where people actually want to pay for what you do, and not having a state force them into it by enforcing artificial scarcity. And if you cant adapt, you parasite, just die off. Thanks for reading.
> On the other hand, if Apple could get the big 4 to agree to drop DRM, they'd have enough clout that they could afford to make it
> a requirement for everybody else.
And how would then the ITMS actually encourage more Ipod sales, which it was designed for, when _any_ other mp3 player out there could play the files bought from the ITMS? Wasnt the mantra not always "Apple doesnt make any mentionable profit with the ITMS, but it drives Ipod sales up"?
In most countries on this planet, an "agreeement" requires both sides to agree on something before the purchase. As of my knowledge, only the US enforce those "shrink wrap" agreements, where one side is able to _hide_ additional clauses in the box until the customer opens the box and then require the customer to bring the ware back (and silently hope hes to lazy to do that, aka "agreement by inertia").
Kind of: "Suprise suprise! You are not allowed to fell a tree with this MS hatchet(tm). Upgrade to MS Axe Pro(tm) today and chop away!"
Or: "Suprise suprise! You're not allowed to play with the toy from this Kinder Suprise (tm) you just opened. Upgrade to Kinder Suprise Premium today to enable additional capabilities of your product!"
I've never seen either a Windows or some other users correct me when I (god forbid!) dont type a case in their beloved trademark name correctly (or if i actually dont care). (How many times have you actually _seen_ somebody else getting corrected when he types vista instead of Vista??)
Its always the Apfel's typing nazis, too brainless to see whether its a MAC computer or a Mac address out of the context.
> If we would like the world outside the US and Western Europe to join the rest of the world
Since the US and Europe are 4 to 5 times smaller than everything else out there, they cant be seen as the "rest" of the world.
> people have to understand that even if there is no "physical object" it isn't correct to just copy it.
This is not a natural given fact of life, but a matter of principle and culture. If your culture does not restrict copying and your fellow man do not condone it, there is _NO_ obvious reason not to do it yourself.
This reason also never existed in the US and Europe, but only in recent times it was introduced as a legal construct _only_ and without any democratic backing. In the US and western europe everybody still would copy Windows without paying for it if.
So you are actually asking the rest of the world to remove their people habitual right to copy which existed for ages and to get down to the US and WE level of mass punishements and legal fear for something people will do anyway?
> Without some education
You sir, are an arrogant prick. Do you really believe the "educated" US citizens would respect copyright without constant legal threats and force against those who chose not to "respect" it?
> these people that just don't know they are doing something wrong will continue and teach children to grow up and violate copyright,
Copyright is, i repeat myself, not a natural law everybody instinctively understands. It has to be enforced _forcibly_ by the state, and this state of force and legal threat has to be held up, since the copyright system would collapse the very moment there is no more force to back it up.
It isn't since force (GPL) is applied only on the ones who try to take the freedom away. You dont force anybody _into_ freedom, you force people not to tiker wirh other peoples freedom.
Without using force your freedom wouldnt be equally distributed so in the practice you would end up with a less total amount of freedom then in theory.
Like you said, Google _pushes_ an massive amount of visitors _at their expense_ (since you actually do and pay nothing to get them) you othervise wouldnt even have. If you cant stay afloat without visitors another company sends in for free, your site should drop off dead.
> Google and other search engines are a huge part of running any business where you do not have a majority of the mindshare out
> there.
They _became_ a part since people simply started to rely (heavily) (and now, even demand, of course, at no cost) on a service they do not pay a dime for.
Reminds me of this classical Bible story of Jonah and the gourd (http://www.carm.org/kjv/Jonah/Jonah_4.htm>):
Then said the LORD, Thou hast had pity on the gourd, for the which thou hast not laboured, neither madest it grow; which came up in a night, and perished in a night. And God said to Jonah, Doest thou well to be angry for the gourd?
And he said, I do well to be angry, even unto death.
No one would actually use it in, you know, where it matters, in trade. (Thats what a _trade_mark is for.) What a product is called by some fanboy on a message board is actually irrelevant, and not a way to extort a existing trademark from someone else.
A "defacto" trademark is gained by selling (or giving away) a product without registering it as a trademark, for the case someone registers it just for the purpose of extorting money from you or shutting you down.
So the few using the other OSes neet to develop something a system so outstanding and superior to the other, to impress all those driver hackers to port their drivers over. Obviously the BSDs do not impress the relevant device driver writers more than Linux, and Linux does not impress some other driver writers more than Windows. They seem both to be not impressive enough in the eyes of the people who have control over the actual hardware they want to run on. A simple "Build it too, and they will come" wont cut it, it has to be a "Build it so much better that they dont have an excuse any more, not to come."
> But according to Slashdot, copyright is evil and obsolete, and people who violate it are heroes who shouldn't be prosecuted. How
> do you reconcile that with your statement about the GPL?
The GPL crweates an ecosystem where copyright is obsolete, so supporting the GPL does more "damage" to the copyright fascism, than simply ignoring some others unfree copyright.
Supporting the GPL is a clear stance against "traditional", restrictive copyright.
> Yes. That's the whole point of the license.
And also the main reason not a single desktop is distributed under this licence, and the systems using this licence never took off like the other one not using this licence.
> But as you grow up, it's time to eschew those childish ways and start acting like a responsible adult.
> A responsible adult respects other peoples rights.
Not when you do not agree that your own rights (and the rights of the entire human civilisation) to copy and share information shouldn't be pruned to make those "rights" of the content creator possible in the first place.
> Why does GPLv3 have to be the correct license for everything?
Since almost any other free software licence tries to accomodate developers of unfree software, which is a Bad Thing for preserving the freeness of the software for future users.