Re: [dev] Anti-GPL hipsters

2011-10-24 Thread Christoph Lohmann 
Greetings comrades.

On 24.10.2011 20:10, Corey Thomasson wrote:
> On 24 October 2011 14:00, mikshaw  wrote:
> 
>> Unrestricted freedom is impossible
> 
> And there's no such thing as restricted freedom.

There is positive discrimination too.

>> I just disagree with people who support those licenses while rabidly
>> claiming the GPL to be some kind of evil cancer.
>>
> But the GPL is *designed* to be a cancer. It's intended to be viral,
> restrictive, and impossible to eradicate.

Yeah, life was designed too.

Instead of talking, all you Open Source slaves should go back to work.


Sincerely,

Christoph Lohmann

Re: [dev] Anti-GPL hipsters

2011-10-24 Thread Corey Thomasson 
On 24 October 2011 14:00, mikshaw  wrote:

>
>
> Unrestricted freedom is impossible
>

And there's no such thing as restricted freedom.


>
> I just disagree with people who support those licenses while rabidly
> claiming the GPL to be some kind of evil cancer.
>
>
But the GPL is *designed* to be a cancer. It's intended to be viral,
restrictive, and impossible to eradicate.

Re: [dev] Anti-GPL hipsters

2011-10-24 Thread Kurt H Maier 
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 2:00 PM, mikshaw  wrote:
>If you're stifling another person's freedoms, you're doing something bad.

"Not giving you stuff" is not stifling your freedom.

>They're free only up to the point when a dev decides to turn the code
>into a proprietary product...

At which point there are two products:  the code under the original
license, and the new code under a new license.

>something that can't be done with GPL.

Bullshit.  Whoever holds the copyright can change the license, and
they can just as easily say "release 2 is not under GPL."  Relicensing
is not theft, and the possibility of someone taking BSD/MIT-licensed
code and relicensing it is no loss at all.  The original code is still
there.  No freedom has been impinged.







-- 
# Kurt H Maier

Re: [dev] Anti-GPL hipsters

2011-10-24 Thread Paul Onyschuk 
On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 14:54:18 +0200
Andreas Krennmair  wrote:

> 
> Primarily, the GPL balances freedom towards the agenda of the FSF and
> their specific interpretation of the term "freedom".
> 
> -ak
> 

Copyleft or not? This is never ending discussion, mostly ideological. 
GPL has many others problems besides that and they're mostly ignored.
Why not choose simpler copyleft licensce like EPL, CDDL or MPL instead?

There is a short article published by Erik Sherman about "Privacy
Policies" [1].  Why no one is reading them?  In simple conclusion: too
long, too much specialized terminology.  GPLv3 is longer than most of
those policies and as hard to read.

I'm not surprised that most of the people here tend to like BSD-like
licenses.  Those licenses are much shorted - to the point, where you can
memorize them like poem.  Interpretation is even simpler: copy-and-edit
("don't sue me" and "include my name in source code" are minor
restriction).

GPL, especially in version three is diffrent kind of beast.  You can
find "Practical Guide to GPL" [2] on Software Freedom Law Center
website - it's 15 pages long and it only describes most common
questions.  Probably more detailed information can be found in german
book called "Die GPL kommentiert und erklärt" [3], which is almost 200
pages long.

I'm not sure about percentage of people, who readed and understand
terms of GPL in a context of their software projects.  I wouldn't be
surprised if number is pretty low.  It's pretty easy to shot yourself
in a foot, while using licenses published by FSF - below is example.

There is a project (I can send you a name in private mail), which uses
GFDL for documentation and GPL for C source code.  What is the problem? 
Documentation is included in source code as comments and when make is
invoked, text is extracted by simple script.  GFDL and GPL aren't
compatible, so you end up with a mess.  On what terms you can
distrubute documentation and how it affects software?

GPL world is full of weird words: derivative work, dual licensing,
linking exception and so on.  Some people tend to think that LGPL is
better than GPL, because copyleft is weaker.  For me LGPL is a linking
exception applied on top of GPL like a hack.  What is linking exception?
It is exception that allows software to be linked with GCC runtime
library without infecting compiled software with GPL [4].

I don't think that GPL or any GNU license are meant to be readed by
programmers.  AFAIK FreeBSD project has friendly consultans (copyright
lawyers) to help them with GPL.  It seems that FSF isn't interested in
resolving this issues.  Instead of simplifying, newer versions are more
complicated than originals (GPLv1 -> GPLv2 -> GPLv3).  GPL version three
even introduced some terms relating to patents.  "Rumor has it, that
version four could be printed in hard cover ;)"

It's not funny to find small project, where 60% of source code are
autohell scripts, 30% is license and actual code that does something is
10%.  I've theory that Stallman writed GPL to accompany GNU projects
(most of them can be counted of having hundred of thousands line of
code).

Back to copyleft dilemma: it's your choice, but you can choose at
least better license than GPL.  Mozilla Foundation is currently
updating MPL [5].  Release Candidate for version two is available and I
can say already that it is well written.  Scope of revision includes:
simplifying text, making it compatible with other licenses and
resolving issues with non-code works (documentation, multimedia and
so on).

Keep in mind, that MPL is offering weaker copyleft than GPL.  EPL, CDDL
and MPL avoided "derivative work" term for very good reason.  Many have
heard this term, but no one actually knows what it is.  Almost every
lawyer has different opinion on this topic.  Right know FSF
interpretation is used, "but Onion News reported that Supreme Court is
accepting unlimited donations from private corporations" (small joke).
One court rouling can change this dramatically.

I would like to end this with qoute from well known copyright lawyer (I
won't tell his name, because qoute is out of context): "The more you
read GPL, the less intelligent you become."

btw. I din't write in english for some time, so I give humble apologise
for bad spelling and so on.


[1] http://ur1.ca/5hjut
[2] http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.html
[3] http://books.google.pl/books?id=Sg1qFXtVaNUC
[4] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception.html
[5] http://mpl.mozilla.org/

-- 
Paul Onyschuk

Re: [dev] Anti-GPL hipsters

2011-10-24 Thread mikshaw 




- Original Message -
> From: Al Gest 
> In the real world a person's freedoms are very much decided by their
> ability to obtain those freedoms. That might not fall in line with
> your moralistic ideologies, but it is reality.
> 
> The GPL is nothing more than Richard Stallman's highly encumbered
> temper-tantrum against propriety software, it has almost nothing to do
> with true freedom. The GPL is to propriety licenses what communism is
> to capitalism. It values the community over the individual, and
> protects the interests of the community at the cost of the individual.
> True freedom can only exist at the individual level, because once you
> introduce the interests of others you introduce restrictions. That
> isn't to say that the interests of others are not important of course,
> but to claim that the GPL is about freedom is just plain bull. The
> restriction of freedom is a necessity for the GPL to achieve its
> purpose, enforced sharing.
> 
> Al.
>

I agree with you that I'm idealistic, and my ideals are admittedly usually 
unobtainable in the real world.  That doesn't mean I should drop them in favor 
of something with which I disagree.  Allowing anyone to achieve whatever goals 
he wants, regardless of its affect on others, is wrong in my opinion.  If 
you're stifling another person's freedoms, you're doing something bad.  
Unrestricted freedom is impossible, because if everyone is allowed the freedom 
to do whatever he wants, eventually someone will suffer a loss of freedom.

I'd like to clarify a point which you seem to have misunderstood.  I wasn't 
claiming that the GPL is true freedom, but it is a reasonable compromise 
between freedom for the original authors & "intellectual property" owners and 
freedom for end users & hackers.  Considering the differences in needs and 
desires of both groups, there is no way to provide true freedom for both.  
Licenses such as BSD and MIT are not true freedom any more than GPL is, because 
they allow a developer to limit the freedom of end users and potential future 
developers.  They're free only up to the point when a dev decides to turn the 
code into a proprietary product...something that can't be done with GPL.  
That's not to say I disagree with the use of BSD/MIT and others like it...I 
just disagree with people who support those licenses while rabidly claiming the 
GPL to be some kind of evil cancer.

Re: [dev] Anti-GPL hipsters

2011-10-24 Thread Bryan Bennett 
> The GPL is nothing more than Richard Stallman's highly encumbered
> temper-tantrum against propriety software, it has almost nothing to do
> with true freedom.

Eloquently sums up my issue with the GPL itself as well as the FSF in
general.

Re: [dev] Anti-GPL hipsters

2011-10-24 Thread Al Gest 
On 23 October 2011 13:47, mikshaw  wrote:
> Claiming a person's freedoms are decided by their ability to obtain those 
> freedoms?  Very wrong.  Just as laws against slavery are there to balance the 
> freedoms of all, GPL is there to balance the freedoms of all users & devs, 
> present and future.

In the real world a person's freedoms are very much decided by their
ability to obtain those freedoms. That might not fall in line with
your moralistic ideologies, but it is reality.

The GPL is nothing more than Richard Stallman's highly encumbered
temper-tantrum against propriety software, it has almost nothing to do
with true freedom. The GPL is to propriety licenses what communism is
to capitalism. It values the community over the individual, and
protects the interests of the community at the cost of the individual.
True freedom can only exist at the individual level, because once you
introduce the interests of others you introduce restrictions. That
isn't to say that the interests of others are not important of course,
but to claim that the GPL is about freedom is just plain bull. The
restriction of freedom is a necessity for the GPL to achieve its
purpose, enforced sharing.

Al.

Re: [dev] Anti-GPL hipsters

2011-10-24 Thread Bjartur Thorlacius 
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 14:46:24 -, Stephen Paul Weber  
 wrote:

Somebody claiming to be mikshaw wrote:

As far as the cc-nd license RMS apparently prefers for his own audio, I
fully agree this is hypocritical and wrong.


Not to wade into a flametroll war, but for the record (in case there are
people who actually don't know) RMS believes in ND licenses for speech so
that he has a legal tool against people who take such speech out of  
context

or misquote it in other ways.

By forbidding *all* derived works. I don't wish to hire a lawyer just to  
tell me if I can translate a speech, resample video recordings, generate  
3D video from independantly distributed footage from two cameras or  
otherwise modify recordings without changing the meaning of the speech. In  
fact, any restrictions on video (as opposed to audio) footage is  
unacceptable. And IMO, the same is true of audio. Misquotal is harmful,  
whether the misquote is considered a derived work or not, or if copyright  
has expired. Copyright is the wrong tool (save for moral copyright).

Re: [dev] Anti-GPL hipsters

2011-10-24 Thread Niki Yoshiuchi 
So I guess that means no auto-tuned Richard Stallman huh?

On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Stephen Paul Weber <
singpol...@singpolyma.net> wrote:

> Somebody claiming to be mikshaw wrote:
>
>> From: Kurt H Maier 
>>
>>>   only an idiot compares a software license to slavery.
>>>
>> As far as the cc-nd license RMS apparently prefers for his own audio, I
>> fully agree this is hypocritical and wrong.
>>
>
> Not to wade into a flametroll war, but for the record (in case there are
> people who actually don't know) RMS believes in ND licenses for speech so
> that he has a legal tool against people who take such speech out of context
> or misquote it in other ways.
>
> --
> Stephen Paul Weber, @singpolyma
> See  for how I prefer to be contacted
> edition right joseph
>

Re: [dev] Anti-GPL hipsters

2011-10-24 Thread Stephen Paul Weber 

Somebody claiming to be mikshaw wrote:

From: Kurt H Maier 

  only an idiot compares a software license to slavery.
As far as the cc-nd license RMS apparently prefers for his own audio, I 
fully agree this is hypocritical and wrong.


Not to wade into a flametroll war, but for the record (in case there are 
people who actually don't know) RMS believes in ND licenses for speech so 
that he has a legal tool against people who take such speech out of context 
or misquote it in other ways.


--
Stephen Paul Weber, @singpolyma
See  for how I prefer to be contacted
edition right joseph


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [dev] Anti-GPL hipsters

2011-10-24 Thread Manolo Martínez 
On 10/24/11 at 10:30am, Kurt H Maier wrote:
> 
> users don't give a shit about software licensing
> 
I do.
> 
> -- 
> # Kurt H Maier
> 

--

Re: [dev] Anti-GPL hipsters

2011-10-24 Thread Kurt H Maier 
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 10:26 AM, mikshaw  wrote:
>  GPL is, in my opinion, a very good balance between dev and user.

users don't give a shit about software licensing


-- 
# Kurt H Maier

Re: [dev] Anti-GPL hipsters

2011-10-24 Thread mikshaw 


From: Kurt H Maier 
>  only an idiot compares a software license to slavery.

It was not I who made, or agreed with, the original slavery comparison.

As far as the cc-nd license RMS apparently prefers for his own audio, I fully 
agree this is hypocritical and wrong. I don't like some of the things he says 
and does (or even like him much as a person), but that doesn't mean I have to 
dislike everything he supports.  GPL is, in my opinion, a very good balance 
between dev and user.  No one is forced to use it if they prefer something that 
allows their code to become proprietary by another's hand, or if they prefer to 
write or buy their own proprietary code.

Re: [dev] Anti-GPL hipsters

2011-10-23 Thread hiro 
I saw a beggar a few days ago and didn't give him any money - he
reminded me of RMS.

Re: [dev] Anti-GPL hipsters

2011-10-23 Thread Kurt H Maier 
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 6:12 PM, Bjartur Thorlacius
 wrote:
> I heard him ask recorders of a speech of his to license recordings
> under a no-derivs-allowed CC license this summer (in Fjölbrautaskólinn
> við Ármúla, Iceland).

Here's an example of some film of his under cc-by-nd:

http://whatisaclouds.com/2011/07/18/free-technology-academy-guest-lecturer-richard-m-stallman/

-- 
# Kurt H Maier

Re: [dev] Anti-GPL hipsters

2011-10-23 Thread Bjartur Thorlacius 
I heard him ask recorders of a speech of his to license recordings
under a no-derivs-allowed CC license this summer (in Fjölbrautaskólinn
við Ármúla, Iceland). These recordings tend to get lost and forgotten
in cutting, encoding and uploading. I'll try to see if this one got
online, and dig it up.
Look up his advice on licenses for anything not software. I know
software will be the most important thing to subscribers to
dev@suckless.org, but audio, video and even -ghasp- graphics can be
modified as well.

Re: [dev] Anti-GPL hipsters

2011-10-23 Thread Aleksey Zapparov 
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 11:54 PM, Bjartur Thorlacius
 wrote:
> I second that. Richard Stallman's love for cc-by-nd is enough proof
> that he is ready to err on the restricted side, instead of the free
> one.

Can you provide a proof link?

Re: [dev] Anti-GPL hipsters

2011-10-23 Thread Bjartur Thorlacius 
On 10/23/11, Kurt H Maier  wrote:
> that is a load of pretentious, presumptuous shit, "mrblog," and nobody
> involved with the creation of the GPL is qualified to judge the needs
> of "all users & devs, present and future."
>
I second that. Richard Stallman's love for cc-by-nd is enough proof
that he is ready to err on the restricted side, instead of the free
one.

Re: [dev] Anti-GPL hipsters

2011-10-23 Thread hiro 
fucking pussies around?

Re: [dev] Anti-GPL hipsters

2011-10-23 Thread Kurt H Maier 
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 8:47 AM, mikshaw  wrote:
> No.
>
> Claiming a person's freedoms are decided by their ability to obtain those 
> freedoms?  Very wrong.  Just as laws against slavery are there to balance the 
> freedoms of all, GPL is there to balance the freedoms of all users & devs, 
> present and future.

that is a load of pretentious, presumptuous shit, "mrblog," and nobody
involved with the creation of the GPL is qualified to judge the needs
of "all users & devs, present and future."

the GPL is a strings-attached license, and is less than completely
free.  your appeal to vague authority is not relevant.  only an idiot
compares a software license to slavery.


-- 
# Kurt H Maier

Re: [dev] Anti-GPL hipsters

2011-10-23 Thread Andreas Krennmair 

* mikshaw  [2011-10-23 14:50]:

Claiming a person's freedoms are decided by their ability to obtain those 
freedoms?  Very wrong.  Just as laws against slavery are there to balance the 
freedoms of all, GPL is there to balance the freedoms of all users & devs, 
present and future.


Primarily, the GPL balances freedom towards the agenda of the FSF and their 
specific interpretation of the term "freedom".


-ak

Re: [dev] Anti-GPL hipsters

2011-10-23 Thread mikshaw 




- Original Message -
From: Jakub Lach 
To: dev mail list 
Cc: 
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 4:11 AM
Subject: Re: [dev] Anti-GPL hipsters

Kurt H Maier  :

> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Stanley Lieber
>  wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Claude Lelouch  
> > wrote:
> >> Why don't I have the freedom to own slaves?
> >
> > because you don't have the strength to take them.
> >
> > -sl
> 
> 
> this is the greatest email ever sent to this list

yes. 


No.

Claiming a person's freedoms are decided by their ability to obtain those 
freedoms?  Very wrong.  Just as laws against slavery are there to balance the 
freedoms of all, GPL is there to balance the freedoms of all users & devs, 
present and future.

Re: [dev] Anti-GPL hipsters

2011-10-21 Thread Invalid Argument 
I need a +1 button on Stanley's reply... :P

Excerpts from Stanley Lieber's message of 2011-10-20 20:32:46 -0400:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Claude Lelouch  
> wrote:
> > Why don't I have the freedom to own slaves?
> 
> because you don't have the strength to take them.
> 
> -sl

Re: [dev] Anti-GPL hipsters

2011-10-21 Thread Jakub Lach 
Kurt H Maier  :

> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Stanley Lieber
>  wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Claude Lelouch  
> > wrote:
> >> Why don't I have the freedom to own slaves?
> >
> > because you don't have the strength to take them.
> >
> > -sl
> 
> 
> this is the greatest email ever sent to this list
 
yes.

Re: [dev] Anti-GPL hipsters

2011-10-20 Thread Am Jam 
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Stanley Lieber wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Claude Lelouch 
> wrote:
> > Why don't I have the freedom to own slaves?
>
> because you don't have the strength to take them.
>
> -sl
>
>

Can we give this guy a medal or something?

Re: [dev] Anti-GPL hipsters

2011-10-20 Thread Kurt H Maier 
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Stanley Lieber
 wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Claude Lelouch  
> wrote:
>> Why don't I have the freedom to own slaves?
>
> because you don't have the strength to take them.
>
> -sl


this is the greatest email ever sent to this list


-- 
# Kurt H Maier

Re: [dev] Anti-GPL hipsters

2011-10-20 Thread Jacob Todd 
The gpl is slavery.
On Oct 20, 2011 8:09 PM, "Claude Lelouch"  wrote:

> Why don't I have the freedom to own slaves?
>
>

Re: [dev] Anti-GPL hipsters

2011-10-20 Thread Stanley Lieber 
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Claude Lelouch  wrote:
> Why don't I have the freedom to own slaves?

because you don't have the strength to take them.

-sl