Re: [dwm] Freedom (was: Re: sic ipv6 patch)
Hello Archie, * Archie Elberling [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-05-24 23:02:09 +0100]: Second this change would make the license incompatible with the GPL (which should be obviated even if you do not agree with the GPL). If you do not agree with something, then what is the point in making effort to support it? As already said, please read http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/gpl-compatible.html for the answer. Best wishes, Matthias
Re: [dwm] Freedom (was: Re: sic ipv6 patch)
On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 6:59 AM, Matthias Kirschner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As already said, please read http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/gpl-compatible.html for the answer. Resorting to argumentum ad internetum, eh? That link is crap. The whole argument is license your code GPL-compatible because the GPL is popular and you don't want to be unpopular. If I went by a popularity contest to decide how to behave I'd be running Windows on a Dell. Fortunately I can think for myself and I needn't rely on internet links containing GPL cheerleading to make decisions for me. Like I said before, I support the GPL, but I like the MIT license better, and I certainly don't think everyone else is doing it is a good reason to do ANYTHING, much less decide on the legal status of code. -- # Kurt H Maier
Re: [dwm] Freedom (was: Re: sic ipv6 patch)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from cador.lan [10.0.0.100] with HTTP/1.1 (POST); Sat, 24 May 2008 23:02:09 +0100 User-Agent: RoundCube Webmail/0.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Sat, 24 May 2008 12:01:36 +0200, Matthias Kirschner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: First it is a very bad idea to write your own licenses (see 6. License proliferation considered harmful). You could make similar arguments about window managers ( only partially a joke) Second this change would make the license incompatible with the GPL (which should be obviated even if you do not agree with the GPL). If you do not agree with something, then what is the point in making effort to support it?
Re: [dwm] Freedom (was: Re: sic ipv6 patch)
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 2:21 AM, Anselm R. Garbe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This whole discussion about licenses supports my first reason why I don't choose GPL: I don't understand it in any detail, because it is too long and covers to many things which I can't remember as a whole. And I doubt most developers who license their stuff under the terms of the GPL actually really know any detail and possible impact of the GPL. Hence discussions about complex licenses tend to be complex as well, as this discussion shows (same applies to discussions about complex software). So, instead of joining a discussion here, I think, that the time is better invested into real development ;) To the proposal I should ask the FFSE guys about things I don't understand: I think this proposal is fair, but actually I really prefer to spend my time into developing something, instead of discussing legal things in theory and practice. The GPL is a very juristic text in my eyes and as usual for juristic persons, there is so much interpretation in it, depending on their model of freedom, thinking, culture, justice, etc. that it might be an expensive (in the matters of time) discussion. A decent license for less suckish software in my eyes, should be easy to grasp and to understand and should not be any longer than the source code itself it restricts or protects to some extend ;) If someone is able to write a copyleft license which might be agreed as open source license and which is as simple to grasp as the MIT license, please volunteer! Kind regards, -- Anselm R. Garbe http://www.suckless.org/ GPG key: 0D73F361 Why not just take the MIT license, and add one simple line saying something along the lines of any improvements must be given back. Maybe this? I just took the dwm license and added a line (c) 2006-2008 Anselm R Garbe garbeam at gmail dot com (c) 2006-2007 Sander van Dijk a dot h dot vandijk at gmail dot com (c) 2006-2007 Jukka Salmi jukka at salmi dot ch (c) 2007 Premysl Hruby dfenze at gmail dot com (c) 2007 Szabolcs Nagy nszabolcs at gmail dot com (c) 2007 Christof Musik christof at sendfax dot de (c) 2007-2008 Enno Gottox Boland gottox at s01 dot de Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the Software), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: Any and all improvements and significant changes to the Software shall be made public and the above copyright holders shall be notified. The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED AS IS, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. -E
Re: [dwm] Freedom (was: Re: sic ipv6 patch)
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 11:03 PM, Szabolcs Nagy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i deliberately used an alternative definition of freedom (and included all the dictatorship), because it makes sense to me. Well, I guess that sums it all up nicely. I think that at this point further argument is obviously useless, so I'm calling it quits. Gr. Sander.
Re: [dwm] Freedom (was: Re: sic ipv6 patch)
* hiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-05-20 19:13:11 -0400]: yes lack of knowledge can mean lack of freedom (with my definition) So you have you own definition? [...] That's our freedom (in your definition). Szabolcs and I can use terms in another way than you, you hiro can curse on public mailing lists, and I can decide to stop discussing with people who swear and get personal.
Re: [dwm] Freedom (was: Re: sic ipv6 patch)
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Matthias Kirschner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * hiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-05-20 19:13:11 -0400]: yes lack of knowledge can mean lack of freedom (with my definition) So you have you own definition? [...] That's our freedom (in your definition). Szabolcs and I can use terms in another way than you, you hiro can curse on public mailing lists, and I can decide to stop discussing with people who swear and get personal. Matthias, don't loose your time on that hairy troll. This is a Microsoft paid guy trying to push BSD licences (they have a shortage of code to put in there products). :D -- use single GPL licensed software, use Linux and secure your digital freedom!
Re: [dwm] Freedom (was: Re: sic ipv6 patch)
That's our freedom (in your definition). Szabolcs and I can use terms in another way than you, you hiro can curse on public mailing lists, and I can decide to stop discussing with people who swear and get personal. This is not politics, it's the internet, boy. Though you could nee some political understanding. I hope you will stay in the software business only. -- hiro
Re: [dwm] Freedom (was: Re: sic ipv6 patch)
Good morning. Am Mon, 19 May 2008 19:24:32 -0400 schrieb hiro [EMAIL PROTECTED]: it's so easy guys. freedom is when you don't mind looking into LICENSE. Ever heard of pipi langstrumpf? She's not public domain. :P Sincerely, Christoph
Re: [dwm] Freedom (was: Re: sic ipv6 patch)
This whole discussion about licenses supports my first reason why I don't choose GPL: I don't understand it in any detail, because it is too long and covers to many things which I can't remember as a whole. And I doubt most developers who license their stuff under the terms of the GPL actually really know any detail and possible impact of the GPL. Hence discussions about complex licenses tend to be complex as well, as this discussion shows (same applies to discussions about complex software). So, instead of joining a discussion here, I think, that the time is better invested into real development ;) To the proposal I should ask the FFSE guys about things I don't understand: I think this proposal is fair, but actually I really prefer to spend my time into developing something, instead of discussing legal things in theory and practice. The GPL is a very juristic text in my eyes and as usual for juristic persons, there is so much interpretation in it, depending on their model of freedom, thinking, culture, justice, etc. that it might be an expensive (in the matters of time) discussion. A decent license for less suckish software in my eyes, should be easy to grasp and to understand and should not be any longer than the source code itself it restricts or protects to some extend ;) If someone is able to write a copyleft license which might be agreed as open source license and which is as simple to grasp as the MIT license, please volunteer! Kind regards, -- Anselm R. Garbe http://www.suckless.org/ GPG key: 0D73F361
Re: [dwm] Freedom (was: Re: sic ipv6 patch)
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 11:21 AM, Anselm R. Garbe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This whole discussion about licenses supports my first reason why I don't choose GPL: I don't understand it in any detail, because it is too long and covers to many things which I can't remember as a whole. And I doubt most developers who license their stuff under the terms of the GPL actually really know any detail and possible impact of the GPL. Create your license: take the MIT, and add something like this clause takes precedence on any previous clauses: in no case you will use/interact with this code in any ways for/from closed source programs, for ever Then you have a kind of GPL. If you want a LGPL, you remove the interact part. Hence discussions about complex licenses tend to be complex as well, as this discussion shows (same applies to discussions about complex software). So, instead of joining a discussion here, I think, that the time is better invested into real development ;) To the proposal I should ask the FFSE guys about things I don't understand: I think this proposal is fair, but actually I really prefer to spend my time into developing something, instead of discussing legal things in theory and practice. The GPL is a very juristic text in my eyes and as usual for juristic persons, there is so much interpretation in it, depending on their model of freedom, thinking, culture, justice, etc. that it might be an expensive (in the matters of time) discussion. A decent license for less suckish software in my eyes, should be easy to grasp and to understand and should not be any longer than the source code itself it restricts or protects to some extend ;) If someone is able to write a copyleft license which might be agreed as open source license and which is as simple to grasp as the MIT license, please volunteer! Kind regards, -- Anselm R. Garbe http://www.suckless.org/ GPG key: 0D73F361 -- use single GPL licensed software, use Linux and secure your digital freedom!
Re: [dwm] Freedom (was: Re: sic ipv6 patch)
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 11:10 AM, Szabolcs Nagy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: most likely everyone would agree that public domain provides more freedom than GPL, but whether GPL is free or not is just a terminological question The discussion wasn't about whether or not GPL provides freedom, the discussion was about the amount of freedom. If most likely everyone would agree that public domain provides more freedom than GPL, then I'd think that the same people would also agree that MIT/BSD fit between PD and GPL in the amount of freedom they provide. Any other conclusion would seem odd to me.
Re: [dwm] Freedom (was: Re: sic ipv6 patch)
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 12:31 PM, Sander van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 11:10 AM, Szabolcs Nagy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: most likely everyone would agree that public domain provides more freedom than GPL, but whether GPL is free or not is just a terminological question The discussion wasn't about whether or not GPL provides freedom, the discussion was about the amount of freedom. If most likely everyone would agree that public domain provides more freedom than GPL, then I'd think that the same people would also agree that MIT/BSD fit between PD and GPL in the amount of freedom they provide. Any other conclusion would seem odd to me. What do you think about the freedom to remove the freedom from the code? -- use single GPL licensed software, use Linux and secure your digital freedom!
Re: [dwm] Freedom (was: Re: sic ipv6 patch)
She's not public domain. :P SHE is public domain. And you can probably get all her stuff from bittorrent. Some people here better give this a try. This is more benefit than reading stupid LICENSEs
Re: [dwm] Freedom (was: Re: sic ipv6 patch)
What do you think about the freedom to remove the freedom from the code? You don't get it, do you? It's elementary for freedom in society to cut others freedom. But this what you're speaking about is not society. You can think whatever you want, create whatever code you want. But this will never cut any other's freedom. On the other hand everyone could use your code, and noone would even notice. It does *no* harm to others. I could understand if you were fighting for real freedom, but this is an imaginary fight about intellectual nonsense. Code has no freedom. people in society want to be free, but the code doesn't mind. It is just letters and stuff. neither free nor unfree. Leave it simple! -- hiro
Re: [dwm] Freedom (was: Re: sic ipv6 patch)
On 5/20/08, hiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What do you think about the freedom to remove the freedom from the code? cut any other's freedom. On the other hand everyone could use your code, and noone would even notice. It does *no* harm to others. sure it does if i start selling dwm for money then it can make harm (economically and game theoretically) I could understand if you were fighting for real freedom, but this is an imaginary fight about intellectual nonsense. i don't get your point here there are many possible attitudes and strategies with respect to software licensing and it's absolutely not trivial which one to chose to achieve a goal (or which goal to prefer). eg. GPL is one possibility which were discussed. it is perfectly justified to talk and reason about the consequences of certain licensing schemes. Code has no freedom. people in society want to be free, but the code doesn't mind. It is just letters and stuff. neither free nor unfree. imho noone talked abut the freedom of code but the freedom of people using that code.
Re: [dwm] Freedom (was: Re: sic ipv6 patch)
Being pragmatic, I think it is better the MIT style license. e.g.: somebody wants to take the tile algorithm from dwm for some proprietary project (yes, there are projects where the code cannot be shared), if dwm is GPL they will just copy it without telling to anybody, to avoid further legal problems; but if it is MIT they can tell it is your code without any problem (and even report you bugs/improvements, if that's the case). Anyway, I think this whole discussion is pointless, because while Anselm releases under the MIT licenses you can just take it and re-release under GPL, if that makes you feel better. Just my 2 cents, -- - yiyus || JGL .
Re: [dwm] Freedom (was: Re: sic ipv6 patch)
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 4:10 AM, Szabolcs Nagy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/20/08, Kurt H Maier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Freedom is an absence of restrictions. The GPL implements no, freedom is a very broad concept there are different possible interpretations (eg. freedom of society and freedom of individual are quite different as mentioned earlier) All valid definitions of freedom involve an absence of restrictions, whether it's an absence of restrictions on individuals or an absence of restrictions on society as a whole. a plausible definition of freedom of a license may care about the long term and global consequences (not just direct restriction count). No, that's the definition of an implication of a license. Freedom is a measure of the absence of restrictions, regardless of whatever semantic gymnastics you were taught in university. (eg. allowing to kill is more free by your definition (less restrictions), but if we care about consequences then it's less free (it may pose much more restrictions on the possibilities of an individual)) This is a specious analogy. When you kill someone you permanently remove them from the population. Compiling a binary and releasing it without providing source does not remove the source code from the public grasp. societal consequences can be part of the definition of freedom Repetition doesn't make it true. as you can see, there is no general agreement on the exact meaning of the term There is in fact near-universal agreement on the exact meaning of the term. You, and certain members and employees of the FSF, have deviated from that meaning. This doesn't make the original meaning less valid; nor does it make your revised edition more valid. You're simply using the word incorrectly. most likely everyone would agree that public domain provides more freedom than GPL, but whether GPL is free or not is just a terminological question It's not just a question of semantics. The word freedom has connotations that are far and away more emotionally charged than any denotative definition of the word. When you, and the FSF, start using it to describe a copyright license that imposes restrictions on people, it's a clear case of obfuscating reality for political purposes, and it's disingenuous. It's also not a very good way to get people on your side. a more interesting question would be what is a desirable goal to achieve with licensing Personally, I'd like to see copyright law abolished entirely. The entire concept of licensing is distasteful to me, but that's the world we live in. -- # Kurt H Maier
Re: [dwm] Freedom (was: Re: sic ipv6 patch)
* Sander van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-05-20 14:20:31 +0200]: On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 12:44 PM, Sylvain Bertrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 12:31 PM, Sander van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The discussion wasn't about whether or not GPL provides freedom, the discussion was about the amount of freedom. If most likely everyone would agree that public domain provides more freedom than GPL, then I'd think that the same people would also agree that MIT/BSD fit between PD and GPL in the amount of freedom they provide. Any other conclusion would seem odd to me. What do you think about the freedom to remove the freedom from the code? That's not possible. When someone uses (parts of) dwm in a closed source product, dwm itself remains as free as ever. Nothing, not even its authors, can change that (well, the authors can change it for future releases, but not for past releases anyway). Why do you think a user who gets DWM in a binary on some device knows a) that this is DWM and b) knows that DWM is licensed under MIT? So this user does not have the freedom to use, study, share and improve the software. Best wishes, Matthias
Re: [dwm] Freedom (was: Re: sic ipv6 patch)
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 3:17 PM, hiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: *you* don't get it (I'm good at personnal attack too): this is a way to lead on the path of understanding why the GPL. And do you already know what comes after understanding on that path you are talking about? I hope you are going on... You should search for the path of truth. Another way to see the GPL: do not close the code. You don't need a GPL for not closing the code. Hu? There is another license as secure than the GPL to protect against code closing? On 5/20/08, Szabolcs Nagy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/20/08, hiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What do you think about the freedom to remove the freedom from the code? cut any other's freedom. On the other hand everyone could use your code, and noone would even notice. It does *no* harm to others. sure it does if i start selling dwm for money then it can make harm (economically and game theoretically) Game theory? Economy? You mean religion? Think again. there are many possible attitudes and strategies with respect to software licensing and it's absolutely not trivial which one to chose to achieve a goal (or which goal to prefer). it is perfectly justified to talk and reason about the consequences of certain licensing schemes. It's perfectly justified to do more important things instead. Code has no freedom. people in society want to be free, but the code doesn't mind. It is just letters and stuff. neither free nor unfree. imho noone talked abut the freedom of code but the freedom of people using that code. imho you don't got a clue. Look again at the quote in the context: What do you think about the freedom to remove the freedom from the code? -- hiro -- use single GPL licensed software, use Linux and secure your digital freedom!
Re: [dwm] Freedom (was: Re: sic ipv6 patch)
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 8:43 AM, Matthias Kirschner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why do you think a user who gets DWM in a binary on some device knows a) that this is DWM and b) knows that DWM is licensed under MIT? So this user does not have the freedom to use, study, share and improve the software. You think their ability to hack on dwm is destroyed by the fact that they can't identify it as dwm? I don't see how this follows. Googling tiling window manager turns up a ton of results, most of which are descended from dwm. -- # Kurt H Maier
Re: [dwm] Freedom (was: Re: sic ipv6 patch)
On 5/20/08, Kurt H Maier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 8:43 AM, Matthias Kirschner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why do you think a user who gets DWM in a binary on some device knows a) that this is DWM and b) knows that DWM is licensed under MIT? So this user does not have the freedom to use, study, share and improve the software. You think their ability to hack on dwm is destroyed by the fact that they can't identify it as dwm? I don't see how this follows. Googling tiling window manager turns up a ton of results, most of which are descended from dwm. -- # Kurt H Maier Perfectly right. Even such closed source adds up, but does not destroys the original software. It even gives a bigger choice to the user. More freedom in this sense.
Re: [dwm] Freedom (was: Re: sic ipv6 patch)
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Matthias Kirschner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How should someone know what a tiling window manager is, when he does not know what a window manger is? If he doesn't know what a tiling window manager is, it's unlikely he's going to use, study, share and improve so your argument goes out the window anyway. Or perhaps better go away from the DWM case: How should a user know that there is original Free Software (like a BSD Kernel) in his router, mobile phone, car, digital camera, television, ... Or the nice photo application on the new TV?? Nobody tells them... they do not know the name, they might not even know that there is something like Free Software, and they might not know that there is something like Source Code. How should they find out that the original software provided them the four freedoms??? They obviously don't care. What's your point? -- # Kurt H Maier
Re: [dwm] Freedom (was: Re: sic ipv6 patch)
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 4:52 PM, hiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hu? There is another license as secure than the GPL to protect against code closing? You mix everything up. There is no need for protection of open code. Well many disagree with you, many think there is such a need. Me first. Everyone has the right of closed code. Just like anybody has the right of privacy. You are right, that's why the GPL protects against code closing only when distribution occurs. Damn this license is well done! Sorry, Anselm for feeding the troll... but this one is hungry... -- use single GPL licensed software, use Linux and secure your digital freedom!
Re: [dwm] Freedom (was: Re: sic ipv6 patch)
Hello Kurt, * Kurt H Maier [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-05-20 09:58:00 -0500]: On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Matthias Kirschner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How should someone know what a tiling window manager is, when he does not know what a window manger is? If he doesn't know what a tiling window manager is, it's unlikely he's going to use, study, share and improve so your argument goes out the window anyway. If they like an application and somebody tells them they can give it to their friends. Why do you think it is unlikely they do it? A lot of people do it with non-free software, even when it is not allowed by law. So why should others not do it when they know it is legal?? Or perhaps better go away from the DWM case: How should a user know that there is original Free Software (like a BSD Kernel) in his router, mobile phone, car, digital camera, television, ... Or the nice photo application on the new TV?? Nobody tells them... they do not know the name, they might not even know that there is something like Free Software, and they might not know that there is something like Source Code. How should they find out that the original software provided them the four freedoms??? They obviously don't care. What's your point? Ok, I try it again to make my point clear. (If it is just, that you disagree with my point, than please tell my. I can live with that. But I understood you that you did not understand my point, so I'll try to explain.) Non-free software takes away users freedom to use, study, share and improve the software. Software which is under a non-protective license can be distributed again as non-free software. People who get this software do not know that parts of the software they use are Free Software. So they do not know about the freedom they would have when using the original software. If they know about their options to use, study, share and improve the software, they can decide to do it or not to do it. So it increases their freedom. Or do you think it decreases their freedom? So in a nutshell, I think it is good if people know about their rights/freedoms/options or whatever you call it with the software as well as in other areas. Best wishes, Matthias
Re: [dwm] Freedom (was: Re: sic ipv6 patch)
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 3:43 PM, Matthias Kirschner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why do you think a user who gets DWM in a binary on some device knows a) that this is DWM and b) knows that DWM is licensed under MIT? So this user does not have the freedom to use, study, share and improve the software. So now software is only free when each and every distributor is forced to educate his customers about all the wonderful things they are allowed to do with it? This is just another display of your misunderstanding of the concept freedom. Really, buy a dictionary...
Re: [dwm] Freedom (was: Re: sic ipv6 patch)
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 3:43 PM, Matthias Kirschner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why do you think a user who gets DWM in a binary on some device knows a) that this is DWM and b) knows that DWM is licensed under MIT? So this user does not have the freedom to use, study, share and improve the software. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with the licensing of the original product. Just because someone can use it without telling others where it came from does NOT in any way make the original product less free.
Re: [dwm] Freedom (was: Re: sic ipv6 patch)
On 5/20/08, Kurt H Maier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (eg. allowing to kill is more free by your definition (less restrictions), but if we care about consequences then it's less free (it may pose much more restrictions on the possibilities of an individual)) This is a specious analogy. When you kill someone you permanently remove them from the population. Compiling a binary and releasing it without providing source does not remove the source code from the public grasp. you missed my point the analogy is to show that removing a restriction may cause more restriction globally in some way (which also shows the flaw in your interpretation of freedom) i thougth this was trivial, but here is a less abstract analogy: - remove restriction 'copyright notice should be included' - one can sell dwm, with different copyright notice - he may restrict * (include some evil, anti-freedom restrictrions here) - ppl won't know about original source because it's not named, so they will face evil restrictions - restrictions == less freedom - so removing restriction might mean less freedom There is in fact near-universal agreement on the exact meaning of the term. You, and certain members and employees of the FSF, have deviated from that meaning. This doesn't make the original meaning less valid; nor does it make your revised edition more valid. You're i talked about freedom more generally (not just software freedom) when defining the term freedom provided by a ruleset the level of inclusion of consequences is an inherent problem. it has nothing to do with FSF. it to describe a copyright license that imposes restrictions on people, it's a clear case of obfuscating reality for political purposes, and it's disingenuous. It's also not a very good way to get people on your side. i think it's a matter of terminology but even regarding it as philosophical question it should have nothing to do with politics or one's side Personally, I'd like to see copyright law abolished entirely. The entire concept of licensing is distasteful to me, but that's the world we live in. i agree. it would be nice if every code were in public domain so noone should care about licensing.
Re: [dwm] Freedom (was: Re: sic ipv6 patch)
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 7:22 PM, Szabolcs Nagy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: you missed my point the analogy is to show that removing a restriction may cause more restriction globally in some way (which also shows the flaw in your interpretation of freedom) i thougth this was trivial, but here is a less abstract analogy: - remove restriction 'copyright notice should be included' - one can sell dwm, with different copyright notice - he may restrict * (include some evil, anti-freedom restrictrions here) Up until here you're making sense. - ppl won't know about original source because it's not named, so they will face evil restrictions Here's where you're wrong. The reason ppl will face evil restrictions here, is not because of a lack of freedom, but because of a lack of knowledge. You basically say so yourself: the reason is because the original source is not named. Hence, the problem here is not the freedom of the original source, but the receivers ignorance of what the original source is, and the rights it gives him. How to deal with that is an interesting question, but it is _not_ a freedom issue. Ignorance != lack of freedom (which demonstrates, again, how some people try to attribute an incorrect meaning to the word freedom). - restrictions == less freedom You're talking about restrictions of the new product, not of the original source (see my comments above). - so removing restriction might mean less freedom _Never_ for the original source. Btw, I really hope that you can see the contradiction in your own statement. To reitterate: MIT/BSD just make software free. GPL on the other hand is not just trying to make software free, but also to govern in what way the receiver can use it. Now this may or may not be morally right, but that's a discussion all in itself. What isn't a discussion is that it's a restriction of freedom. In some situations, a benevolent dictator may be better for the people than total freedom, perhaps even better than democracy. Regardless of the level of benevolence though, a benevolent dictator is still a dictator, no matter what way you put it. Greetings, Sander.
Re: [dwm] Freedom (was: Re: sic ipv6 patch)
Sander van Dijk wrote: To reitterate: MIT/BSD just make software free. GPL on the other hand is not just trying to make software free, but also to govern in what way the receiver can use it. Now this may or may not be morally right, but that's a discussion all in itself. What isn't a discussion is that it's a restriction of freedom. In some situations, a benevolent dictator may be better for the people than total freedom, perhaps even better than democracy. Regardless of the level of benevolence though, a benevolent dictator is still a dictator, no matter what way you put it. Maybe the ultimate in _individual_ freedom is the absence of restrictions, but that ignores other very important freedoms. But by your reasoning, the form of government with the most freedom is an anarchy. Personally, I much prefer democracy. A society that does not outlaw murder maximizes individual freedom for the murderer. But I doubt that the murder victim felt very free. A system of laws is necessary to protect individual rights. Are they sometimes restrictive to the indiviual? Yes. But they are necessary to a truly free society. Doug.
Re: [dwm] Freedom (was: Re: sic ipv6 patch)
* Sander van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-05-20 18:07:53 +0200]: On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 3:43 PM, Matthias Kirschner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why do you think a user who gets DWM in a binary on some device knows a) that this is DWM and b) knows that DWM is licensed under MIT? So this user does not have the freedom to use, study, share and improve the software. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with the licensing of the original product. Why not? If the original license is GPL, they have to say that the product includes GPLed software, and that they can get the source code for the next three years. So the user knows about this. Just because someone can use it without telling others where it came from does NOT in any way make the original product less free. Yes, I agree. Best wishes, Matthias
Re: [dwm] Freedom (was: Re: sic ipv6 patch)
* Sander van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-05-20 18:23:43 +0200]: On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 3:43 PM, Matthias Kirschner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why do you think a user who gets DWM in a binary on some device knows a) that this is DWM and b) knows that DWM is licensed under MIT? So this user does not have the freedom to use, study, share and improve the software. So now software is only free when each and every distributor is forced to educate his customers about all the wonderful things they are allowed to do with it? For the record: I did not say that. Software is free, when the user has the freedom to use, study, share and improve it. This is just another display of your misunderstanding of the concept freedom. Really, buy a dictionary... Thanks for the advise :)
Re: [dwm] Freedom (was: Re: sic ipv6 patch)
On 5/20/08, Sylvain Bertrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 4:52 PM, hiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hu? There is another license as secure than the GPL to protect against code closing? You mix everything up. There is no need for protection of open code. Well many disagree with you, many think there is such a need. I would feel ashamed if everyone would agree with me. And keep in mind, that quantity of thoughts is not quality. Me first. Haha, It's an honour for me, that *you* were first. Everyone has the right of closed code. Just like anybody has the right of privacy. You are right, that's why the GPL protects against code closing only when distribution occurs. Damn this license is well done! Yeah it will probably save the world from demise. It probably saved thousands of lifes already. Sorry, Anselm for feeding the troll... but this one is hungry... You seem like having a lot of social connections. Talking a lot about all that people who are supposedly on your side. If you want me to go, just say so. I will definitely do so in this case. Good luck to you on your path. -- hiro
Re: [dwm] Freedom (was: Re: sic ipv6 patch)
yes lack of knowledge can mean lack of freedom (with my definition) So you have you own definition? Fucking nice! Ignorance != lack of freedom (which demonstrates, again, how some people try to attribute an incorrect meaning to the word freedom). the point is that ppl have no way to determine the origin. they are not ignorant, but mislead. And you, wise man, are able to force them to sanity. That's again, Fucking nice! of course it is an indirect consequence of the ruleset, but still a consequence. better try and look at *all* consequences. You're talking about restrictions of the new product, not of the original source (see my comments above). yes, but this new product is the result of the permissive license. in my opinion it makes sense to track the effects of a license further than direct usage. Some people even think communism must make sense. Because with this great invention you can track effects even of more than just licenses. - so removing restriction might mean less freedom _Never_ for the original source. Btw, I really hope that you can see the contradiction in your own statement. well i'm talking about the resulting sum of freedom of ppl (for whom the original src might not be available (lack of knowledge, false advertisment etc..)) (the example was a proof by contradiction to show that number of restriction is not always a good measure of freedom, so the contradiction is fine there) Well, you *are* a communist, aren't you? MIT/BSD just make software free. GPL on the other hand is not just trying to make software free, but also to govern in what way the receiver can use it. Now this may or may not be morally right, but that's a discussion all in itself. What isn't a discussion is that it's a restriction of freedom. In some situations, a benevolent dictator may be better for the people than total freedom, perhaps even better than democracy. Regardless of the level of benevolence though, a benevolent dictator is still a dictator, no matter what way you put it. yes, we are talking about different terms i deliberately used an alternative definition of freedom (and included all the dictatorship), because it makes sense to me. the restrictions in GPL may have moral/political/game theoretical roots but imho it's valid to call it freedom. Oh so it's valid, because it makes sense to you? Fucking nice! yet another example (driving rules): (a) everyone should drive on the right side of the road (b) any side of the road can be used by usual freedom definition (b) is more free, it allows one to use _either_ side of the road. in reality with (b) one can use _neither_ side of the road (instant traffic jam, deadlocks at crossroads). with all the restrictions, (a) makes sure that ppl actually can use at least one side of the road, thus globally (a) provides more free choices (1 insted of 0). The difference is, you can offer an unlimited amount of software apps in closed source and it will not hinder anyone in doing what he'd like to do. Even if they are all copys of the same public domain code... -- hiro
Re: [dwm] Freedom (was: Re: sic ipv6 patch)
On 5/20/08, Matthias Kirschner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Sander van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-05-20 18:23:43 +0200]: On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 3:43 PM, Matthias Kirschner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why do you think a user who gets DWM in a binary on some device knows a) that this is DWM and b) knows that DWM is licensed under MIT? So this user does not have the freedom to use, study, share and improve the software. So now software is only free when each and every distributor is forced to educate his customers about all the wonderful things they are allowed to do with it? For the record: I did not say that. Software is free, when the user has the freedom to use, study, share and improve it. This is just another display of your misunderstanding of the concept freedom. Really, buy a dictionary... Thanks for the advise :) Yeah, very funny. This is plain ridiculous -- hiro
Re: [dwm] Freedom (was: Re: sic ipv6 patch)
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 8:31 PM, Matthias Kirschner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are people (like) you who say modified BSD/MIT licenses are more free, because users/developers have the freedom to make the software unfree. (More a freedom of the individual.) No no, it's not just people saying that, but also every dictionary in the world; some examples of dictionary definitions of freedom: - the power to determine action without restraint. - the absence of or release from ties, obligations, etc. - the power to exercise choice and make decisions without constraint from within or without; autonomy; self-determination. Since the GPL puts more restrictions on the user, it provides less freedom. Period. There's no arguing about that, at least not without maiming the definition of freedom. Now don't get me wrong: I agree that for some developers/projects the extra restrictions of the GPL are necessary, or at least desirable; what annoys me is that these extra restrictions are all too often advocated as freedom. Restrictions are NOT freedom, no matter how morally justified they are. I'm not arguing against the GPL, I'm arguing against the abuse of the word freedom for its cause. We have dictionaries for a reason, and when people start inventing their own definitions of words because it makes what they're doing sound better, we'll soon have Babel all over again. Greetings, Sander.
Re: [dwm] Freedom (was: Re: sic ipv6 patch)
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Matthias Kirschner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I had university seminars about the term freedom, Your lack of clarity on relevant concepts is not grounds for an ethos. Freedom is an absence of restrictions. The GPL implements restrictions; therefore, it lessens freedom. Your disagreement with the societal consequences of that restriction does not affect the fact that the GPL uses the force of copyright law to tell people what may not be done with the code. I support the GPL, but it limits a person's freedom to use the code. Period. With dwm's current license, I can embed the window manager in a closed-source binary if I so choose. With the GPL, I cannot. That is a restriction, and it inhibits freedom. I don't see how this can be confusing or even debatable. For more information on the fallacy upon which your argument is based, read more about the fallacy of consequence. [1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences -- # Kurt H Maier
Re: [dwm] Freedom (was: Re: sic ipv6 patch)
Many are very wrong. The BSD like licenses have more freedom than GPL licenses... since you can wipe out freedom from the code. What is a freedom which can destroy itself? It's is *not* a comparison based on the amount of freedom of each type of license. That's plain stupid. People who are saying that GPL licenses have more freedom than BSD like licenses are wrong. People saying that more freedom the better for software are wrong too... It's a matter of choice, balance and many other parameters... For me and many, it's GPL. -- use single GPL licensed software, use Linux and secure your digital freedom!
Re: [dwm] Freedom (was: Re: sic ipv6 patch)
it's so easy guys. freedom is when you don't mind looking into LICENSE. Ever heard of pipi langstrumpf?
