Dear StasB, First and foremost, please note that **I am criticizing your argument** against my position on NAP and "copyfree"dom advocacy, **not you personally**.
Also please keep in mind that this isn't a fully off-topic discussion for this forum, because Nim's ecosystem ranks #1 in "copyfree"dom - ahead of every other language I've analyzed! (Only Julia has a higher percentage of copyfree packages, but it loses tons of points for lack of OS portability and a ton of uncopyfree dependencies for the interpreter itself.) This can be a marginal but nonetheless noteworthy additional "selling point" for Nim advocacy, and thus I encourage all Nim module writers to stick to copyfree licenses like MIT. > Personally, I think all libraries should be named after dead dictators. That > always gives me serious feelings. Just a small personal opinion. Sarcasm was initiated here. If there had been a Non-Sarcasm Principle, then I'd claim self-defense. OK, so this is a thread about subjective, opinion-based, cultural reactions to non-technical aspects of Nim and its developer ecosystem. I've contributed my position, which is the N.A.P. > I just checked my code for communism, but I couldn't find it. Do I need > special glasses for it? It's not about "communism". And even if (hypothetically) North Korea uses my software in its nuclear warheads - well, that's an unavoidable potential side-effect of making it free. It's about things that have tangible consequences, like licenses and needless institutional entanglements (like GitHub, Microsoft, Apple, Google, etc). And so, when "checking your code for communism" (that is, for the things that I object to), check the legalese that one would supposedly become subject to by using it, including all dependencies. Nim itself is an example of genuinely free software: it builds on a free OS (ex. [Liberty BSD](https://libertybsd.net), HaikuOS, and soon my own OS/NAP) with a free compiler (ex. clang, pcc) and no restrictively licensed dependencies (except for optional modules like SSL). But even installing many modules from nimble requires git (GPL), and even contacting many of the devs requires signing up with GitHub. Even if a Nim module is written by $(insert your most hated group here), you can simply "grab the source code and run". One can fork all the copyfree components of the Nim ecosystem (without misrepresenting their origin), put them outside of the untrustworthy mousetrap that is GitHub, and change all names as one sees fit. > You mean you don't like the fact that you can get sued if you make use of > GPL'd stuff while violating the GPL license? Interesting. True, I don't like that fact - as a matter of principle. I disagree with both the aims and the means of GPL, and wish to work towards the creation of a better new free software philosophy. That doesn't mean I want to closed-source-fork your code and pretend that I wrote it. This insinuation can be refuted very thoroughly if needed. > Do they have contracts and intellectual property in Ancapistan, or is anyone > just allowed to do whatever they like with the work of others when said work > is digital? If I haven't yet answered this above (despite my lazy stupid verbosity and talentless attempts at literary charm), then the **Stephan Kinsella** reference should have been sufficient. There are many right-libertarians 50+ IQ points above me on all sides of the IP issues, and you are better off reading them instead of me. > [...] can you tell apart that which can be attributed to your own efforts > from that which can only be attributed to the efforts of others? Human beings are fallible and biased in their individual favor, so it would be best if we had software systems (DVCS, timestamped blockchain-backed P2P web archives, search engines, etc) to keep track of this for us. A sufficiently advanced AI would probably shock all of us with just how unoriginal all our ideas are. So what? There's also a limit to how far attribution of efforts can be measured. All human achievement is a consequence of earlier civilization. I'm pretty sure that most words in the English language have been invented by others, for example, and the phonological building blocks have been around [for millions of years](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_speech). So what? This doesn't automatically subjugate me to anything. > If you walk down the street and you run into a newspaper stand, do you feel > entitled to grab a newspaper and make use of it (as opposed to simply looking > at it while it's in a public place) because you never explicitly agreed to > pay for it? No, because it's not yours, and you don't know if you have > permission to do so. This is **not a fitting analogy in the slightest** , because a newspaper and a newspaper stand are physical property. A less bad analogy would ask if I "feel entitled" to download a digital copy of a newspaper on _The Pirate Bay_ (or equivalent) - but this is still **not what I 'm advocating!** A valid "newspaper"-like analogy would be me choosing to only read Wikinews (which can be freely copied and [only requires attribution](https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Copyright)) and equivalently "permissive" / "public domain" news. (Note: requiring attribution via a license can in theory also involve government force, but this is inconsequential in practice, especially for software. I let copyfree.org decide where the line is.) I've previously supported free content producers I really liked with voluntary donations (ex. [$100/month FTL](https://web.archive.org/web/20061208073722/http://freetalklive.com:80/AMP.php), before they started disappoint...). (And someday I'll start supporting free software again. Most likely Nim. When I am good and ready. Someday...) > By the same token, you don't get to make free use of the work of others, even > if it's in digital form. You seek permission first, which often comes in the > form of a license, and it details the conditions that you must agree to (if > any) if you want to make use of the work in question. It's not "by the same token", as I explained above. Speaking of which, did you check the license before "making free use" of the term "by the same token"? So you're missing an argument for why "intellectual property" is universal law that trumps my physical property rights and justifies force. (Don't worry, lacking such an argument puts you in very good company, like Ayn Rand.) But what you're _really_ lacking is an argument against my criticism of restrictive software and services, which is the actual subject at hand. > Failure to abide by the conditions is evidence that you 're using someone > else's work without permission at best, or that you are perfectly aware of > the conditions and choose to violate them fraudulently at worst. Epic logic fail! I am not "failing to abide", I am arguing against and avoiding / boycotting. My big upcoming project is OS/NAP, an open source Unix distro + ports collection + original software that doesn't violate the Non-Aggression Principle. Like other consistently-principled libertarians, I object to all examples of government force. Objecting to US interventionism in the Middle East isn't "evidence" that you're a Jihadi terrorist. Objecting to Iran's use of death penalty for sodomy isn't "evidence" of one's homosexuality. Objecting to "bake the cake" laws that violate freedom of association and religious conscience isn't "evidence" of homophobia. Objecting to the "War On Drugs" isn't "evidence" that you're a drug dealer. Etc, etc, etc. By your logic I'd have to be all those things - at the same time. :O What I am is a diehard free software advocate, but I come from a very different philosophical foundation than the likes of Richard Stallman, who have been a diabolical cyclopean early influence on free software. They hate free market capitalism, and have been using whatever means they can against it: licenses, regulations, legislation, etc, etc, etc. Advocating fully open and unencumbered ("permissive" / "copyfree" / "public domain") software makes me more, not less of a free software advocate than Stallman! ::roar!::
