Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 07:09 -0400, Nick Holland wrote:
>> GNUspeak:
>
> These are definitely not the views of the GNU project. They *might* be
> views of the self-styled "Linux nerds" that think they are "k00l" and
> "eleet" because they read Slashdot, but to imply the GNU project
> espouses these views is, quite frankly, slanderous.
Then why don't they fight it?
Why isn't Stallman or Torvalds or other prominents standing up and
saying, "This is wrong! This is not what we are about!"
Sure, there is no way they can get involved in every little issue that
comes up, but the GNU and FSF are all about their license they are very
proud of and defend strongly. I'd expect something out of 'em on this,
as the morality, ethics -- and yes, the law -- are so clear, and their
casual indifference towards another license is too likely to end up
blowing up on 'em in the future.
(my first response was going to be, "this isn't about the official
views of the GNU project", but then...they have been strangely silent).
>> "Give back to the community!" (which really means, "I'm the community,
>> gimme, gimme, gimme!")
>
> There may be some in the free software movement that think like this,
> but this is far from a majority view.
Of the PROGRAMMERS, sure. Duh. Thats' why they do it. Pretty much
by definition, people who give stuff away are..uh..givers. :) If
that's what you mean by the "free software movement", fine.
However, most of the people using the word "community" include the vast
number of users. I'm talking about the takers. Those who leach without
ever giving back. I think if I count the number of people posting
horribly offensive "You should do it MY way, and cater to MY needs
because I want you to" messages to misc@ to those that actually
contribute code (or any other kind of support) to the OpenBSD project,
you would see you are wrong.
Note: I'm not talking about people asking questions, even dumb or un-
researched question. I'm talking about those who say we are doing
something "wrong" who've never attempted to do better. The people
who say "OpenBSD would be more popular if <stupid advice here>". The
people who post politely worded but ever-so-offensive messages that
make developers say to themselves, "Why do I do this? Certainly not
for him".
>> "Free as in Freedom!" (but "Free as in no monetary charge" beats
>> the hell out of taking a stand)
>
> Again, Richard Stallman's famous speech makes it clear monetary charge
> is not the reason for the free software movement.
I'm not talking about Richard Stallman, I'm talking about the people
who quote him and chant his words, then live very contrary to them.
I.e., not words of the prophet, but the actions of the "followers".
People wrap themselves in pretty words, then go out and screw each
other when it is convenient.
(Ok, I'm no fan of RMS. Or ESR. But I'm not talking about 'em.)
>> Free software: It's all about the price.
>> The rest of the talk about "freedom", etc. is just trying to keep
>> them from looking like cheap, greedy bastards.
>> At least for an awful lot of 'em.
>
> You know, it's fine if you hate the GPL. But I'll be damned if I just
> sit here and let you spread outright Goddamned *lies* about the free
> software movement and the people that represent it.
are you implying that the GPL & FSF *is* the free software movement?
Sorry, but I happen to ALSO represent it.
Obviously you have missed some of my commentaries on the GPL vs. BSD
philosophy. I don't hate the GPL. I dislike it compared to the BSD
alternative in general (I dislike milk chocolate compared to dark
chocolate, too, but either beats the heck out of, uh, most things. :)
but the short version is, it boils down to which you fear more:
Big Companies using your code and thus, you as a developer, without
pay or allowing you to use their code.
-- or --
Big Companies NOT using your code, and rolling their own (inferior,
incompatible, inconsistent, proprietary) crap instead.
I can make a pretty convincing case for either. However, as much as
I'd dislike seeing Microsoft take OpenBSD code and ideas without
compensation of any kind, I'd much prefer they use the code and ideas
to not using 'em. But that's me. Not all may agree, and that's a
good thing.
What I do hate is hypocrisy.
People who preach the love of God, and kill those who preach it slightly
differently.
People who say God is all powerful, then feel the need to "defend" him.
People in an auto-town who slap a UAW Union "NO SCAB PAPERS" bumper
sticker on their car made by non-union workers ("Solidarity for me!")
People who say "PROTECT MY CODE" while they steal someone else's.
GPL is so far down that list, it can't be called "hate". Not even an
annoyance really. UNLESS it gets slapped on someone's code without
their permission and against their wishes. That's not hating the GPL
in general, just the actions of some who pretend to support it.
(I love chocolate, but I hate to see it ground and melted into the
upholstery of my chair. That's just not where it belongs, and it may
be rather embarrassing when I stand up)
Your tone is similar to that of people who refuse to condemn the acts
of vandals or killers simply because they are (loosely and self-
proclaimed) of the same arbitrary group as they are. "An attack on
them is an an attack on me, and we can't have that!"
I can condemn an action of the state of Israel without being anti-Jewish.
I can condemn an action of my own government (or its people or its media)
without being anti-American.
I can condemn an action of a violent "religious" group without being
against the true teachings and followers of that religion. (OT Rant: I
am tired of hearing of "Islamic terrorists" or "Christian militants".
These guys aren't representing their religions, and it is freaking time
the vast majority of the GOOD people who follow those religions stood
up and said, "Hey, they aren't me!" rather than letting their silence
support the destruction of their own reputations. Ok, I digress. Or
maybe not).
I can condemn an action of some who call themselves "free software
developers" who have done wrong without being against free software.
I can condemn the inactions of "free software supporters" who have
shown their true motives. And I will say what I see those true
motives to be.
> I'm not cheap. I'm not greedy. All I am after, is the freedom to use my
> computer the way I want to without Microsoft, Apple, Google, AOL, Adobe,
> Real, or other large companies being able to step in and say "no you
> can't do that, it's not in our (financial) best interests to let you".
> For me, it's always been about freedom. I would think for most of the
> free software movement that truly knows what's going on, it *is* about
> freedom.
>
> While it may be seen as distateful to
"while the killings were unfortunate ..."
> make modifications to BSD-licensed
> code, and place those modifications under the GPL or a similar "share
> alike" license, based upon what I understand of copyright law, it's
> perfectly legal.
uh, no.
There is no way you can convince me that either the GPL or BSD license
permits the removal and replacement.
> Even though BSD-style licenses are compatible with the
> GPL, there are perfectly acceptable social goals achieved only by
> releasing under the GPL or a similar license.
holy shit.
The ends ("perfectly acceptable social goals") justify the means
(theft of intellectual property)?
Wish I had saw that before I started this response, you are not
worth the time.
(well, as long as I am this far...)
There are perfectly acceptable social goals achieved only by releasing
under the BSD or similar license, so let's go BSDify gcc! Sure, you
will say that the GPL doesn't allow that, but if you can ignore/alter
the meaning of three simple lines for your benefit, well, I suspect
I can twist meaning out of the many pages of GPL that will make both
our heads spin.
Wow.
Nick.
