Stallman Calls Valve Games on Linux

[Athernar]

Stop kidding yourself, no one is really contributing here.

No, I think plenty of people have contributed their opinions. Just because they don't align with your does not disqualify them.

But please, continue to enlighten us inferior beings with thou holy opinions.

<snip>

I understand the ethos of the GPL fine. Placing restrictions on redistribution is taking away freedom no matter how you try and spin it.

For example, in America: Freedom of speech applies to everyone regardless of how disgusting/immoral/wrong their views may be, it is part of what gives the Westboro goons the freedom to protest funerals of dead soldiers. If you take their freedom away simply because you disagree, then you're no longer operating under freedom.

And it's the same with the GPL. Freedom is absolute, no conditions. Freedom is allowing hate speech, freedom is allowing companies to take open-source code and close it.

> 2012

> still need to explain GPL

> mfw

> Greentexting outside of 4chan

[ichi]

I understand the ethos of the GPL fine.

Going by your reply I don't think you do.

Placing restrictions on redistribution is taking away freedom no matter how you try and spin it.

For example, in America: Freedom of speech applies to everyone regardless of how disgusting/immoral/wrong their views may be, it is part of what gives the Westboro goons the freedom to protest funerals of dead soldiers. If you take their freedom away simply because you disagree, then you're no longer operating under freedom.

And it's the same with the GPL. Freedom is absolute, no conditions. Freedom is allowing hate speech, freedom is allowing companies to take open-source code and close it.

That's because when you hear freedom you are thinking about yourself as a software developer or distributor (I guess, because the GPL doesn't impose any kind of restriction whatsoever on users), but that's not what Stallman is talking about.

What Stallman means when he says freedom is:

a) Software that's free no matter what. The GPL licensed software is free, derivative works are free, and no one can take GPL licensed software and take away the freedom from it.

b) Users are free to do with the software as they please, and will continue to do so because the GPL license guarantees that no one will be able to take that freedom from them.

To ensure that both a and b will always remain that way, the GPL license forbids distributors from relicensing the software under any license that make either a or b non true.

It's quite similar to your own freedom: you are free, but to ensure that you'll always be free there are rules that forbid others from taking that freedom away from you.

Going by your own example, you have free speech because there are rules that forbid others from not letting you say whatever you want.

[redfish]

For example, in America: Freedom of speech applies to everyone regardless of how disgusting/immoral/wrong their views may be, it is part of what gives the Westboro goons the freedom to protest funerals of dead soldiers. If you take their freedom away simply because you disagree, then you're no longer operating under freedom.

And it's the same with the GPL. Freedom is absolute, no conditions.

Freedom of speech in America isn't absolute though, if it materially harms people, libel, slander, incitement to violence, etc., it can be criminalized. For the Westboro case, many cities have legally disallowed any demonstrations around funerals. But if the WBC continues to demonstrate miles away from the funeral there's nothing much people can do.

BTW I have no problem with the GPL, I don't think its necessarily more free (free as in freedom) than proprietary software though, which is a disagreement I have with Stallman. Because I have no moral issue with closed source as a thing in itself, putting restrictions on developers for using code is putting restrictions on people nonetheless.

[redfish]

That's because when you hear freedom you are thinking about yourself as a software developer or distributor (I guess, because the GPL doesn't impose any kind of restriction whatsoever on users), but that's not what Stallman is talking about.

Effectively Stallman is talking about developers also -- modifying and resdistributing modified software isn't something common for average end users to do.

[Athernar]

Going by your reply I don't think you do.

You can keep explaining it till you're blue in the face, I understand the intention of the GPL just fine. I just don't use/agree with Stallman's attempts at redefining words/terms in his favour.

1) A license which has restrictions on usage or redistribution = a restrictive license.

2) Freedom includes permitting "the bad guys".

Thus, the GPL is a non-free restrictive license.

You can argue all you want with someone else as to if the GPL is good or bad, but the simple fact is calling it "Free" when it quite clearly is not is dishonest and unethical. And no, I don't care what Stallman's (re-)definitions of various words are.

Freedom of speech in America isn't absolute though, if it materially harms people, libel, slander, incitement to violence, etc., it can be criminalized. For the Westboro case, many cities have legally disallowed any demonstrations around funerals. But if the WBC continues to demonstrate miles away from the funeral there's nothing much people can do.

BTW I have no problem with the GPL, I don't think its necessarily more free (free as in freedom) than proprietary software though, which is a disagreement I have with Stallman. Because I have no moral issue with closed source as a thing in itself, putting restrictions on developers for using code is putting restrictions on people nonetheless.

It wasn't the most ideal example I'll agree, but I think it captured the rough idea I was going for. I.e. If you censor Westboro you've removed freedom, and set a slippery slope precedent.

[chrisj1968]

what is the problem here? Linux would be cool.since i have a windows steam account, I'm hoping that I could transfer my account to a Linux account and carry my games over. this would be cool.

[ichi]

BTW I have no problem with the GPL, I don't think its necessarily more free (free as in freedom) than proprietary software though, which is a disagreement I have with Stallman. Because I have no moral issue with closed source as a thing in itself, putting restrictions on developers for using code is putting restrictions on people nonetheless.

I don't think you actually disagree with Stallman: different licenses grant different degrees of freedom to different groups of people. Eg. if you are a software distributor you'd have more freedom with a BSD license since you could do whatever the heck you want with the code.

If you run a software company you might have more freedom with a proprietary license, since you could decide exactly who gets to run and/or modify the code, to what extent and under what circunstances.

Stallman is an activist for free software, not for the freedom of companies and software distributors.

[redfish]

I don't think you actually disagree with Stallman: different licenses grant different degrees of freedom to different groups of people. Eg. if you are a software distributor you'd have more freedom with a BSD license since you could do whatever the heck you want with the code.

If you run a software company you might have more freedom with a proprietary license, since you could decide exactly who gets to run and/or modify the code, to what extent and under what circunstances.

Stallman is an activist for free software, not for the freedom of companies and software distributors.

I don't have a problem with a lot of what Stallman argues but sometimes I see him going over the line talking about the evils of proprietary software; in this case Valve games on Linux being 'unethical'

[ichi]

You can keep explaining it till you're blue in the face, I understand the intention of the GPL just fine. I just don't use/agree with Stallman's attempts at redefining words/terms in his favour.

1) A license which has restrictions on usage or redistribution = a restrictive license.

2) Freedom includes permitting "the bad guys".

Thus, the GPL is a non-free restrictive license.

You can argue all you want with someone else as to if the GPL is good or bad, but the simple fact is calling it "Free" when it quite clearly is not is dishonest and unethical. And no, I don't care what Stallman's (re-)definitions of various words are.

You keep running in circles because you are just not getting who are the subjects that get the freedom with the GPL.

I don't have a problem with a lot of what Stallman argues but sometimes I see him going over the line talking about the evils of proprietary software; in this case Valve games on Linux being 'unethical'

That I agree with, but that's the thing with activists: they are usually stuck with very radical ideas.

[Athernar]

You keep running in circles because you are just not getting who are the subjects that get the freedom with the GPL.

No, you just don't care to admit that you know what I'm saying is technically true by real-world definitions.

You seek to try usurp the term "Freedom" under your own definitions to benefit yourself. This is no different to theists that try and claim the monopoly on morality.

Freedom is for everyone, not just those you choose worthy of it.

[ichi]

No, you just don't care to admit that you know what I'm saying is technically true by real-world definitions.

You seek to try usurp the term "Freedom" under your own definitions to benefit yourself. This is no different to theists that try and claim the monopoly on morality.

Freedom is for everyone, not just those you choose worthy of it.

You are conveniently forgeting that you are free just because your freedom is restricted: you aren't allowed to enslave others.

Stallman released a license that grants the same kind of freedom to the code licensed under it: the code is free and can't be made non free.

[Athernar]

You are conveniently forgeting that you are free just because your freedom is restricted: you aren't allowed to enslave others.

Stallman released a license that grants the same kind of freedom to the code licensed under it: the code is free and can't be made non free.

Stallman released a viral non-free license that infects derivatives with his personal agenda and views.

Entities not releasing code from a work derived from another licensed under a freedom-based license such as ISC, BSD or MIT does not enslave users, since users are free to choose or create an open alternative.

Freedom is for everyone, not just those that the dictator Stallman decrees.

[tiagosilva29]

Freedom is for everyone, not just those that the dictator Stallman decrees.

That's not freedom... it's anarchy, bro'.

[Athernar]

That's not freedom... it's anarchy, bro'.

Sorry broheim, but the dictionary disagrees:

free?dom

noun?/?fr?d?m/?

freedoms, plural

1.The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint

- we do have some freedom of choice

- he talks of revoking some of the freedoms

Specifying that derivative works must use the same license classifies as both a hinderance and restraint. Which I'm sure you'll agree.

Because hey, if it didn't then the GPL wouldn't exist.

[ichi]

Stallman released a viral non-free license that infects derivatives with his personal agenda and views.

Entities not releasing code from a derivative work licensed under a freedom-based license such as ISC, BSD or MIT does not enslave users, since users are free to choose or create an open alternative.

Freedom is for everyone, not just those that the dictator Stallman decrees.

Well, you know, derivate works of GPL licensed code are created under the agreement with the terms of the GPL. You don't magically get forced to release your work under any license that you didn't agree with.

If you release a derivative work of BSD licensed code you are also agreeing to distribute the software with the copyright notice, the liability disclaimer and the license conditions, don't you?

You keep talking about freedom for everyone, so I take that the concept of software being free that Stallman talks about (not the developers, not the software companies... the software itself) flies over your head.

If everyone was free (going by your concept of "free" and "everyone") I wouldn't have the freedom to access the code of the derivative works of my own code. If I'm free to access the code of the derivative works of my code, those making that derivative work aren't free to restrict access to the code.

See how that works? Every license restricts someone's freedoms somewhere, they just cut on different places.

And users hardly have anything to do with the argument since they have zero restrictions under the GPL license.

[Solid Knight]

/facepalm

The GPL is about keeping both the GPL licensed code and it's derivative works free. That's the freedom Stallman is talking about, not your freedom to take code you didn't wrote and do with it as you please (eg. redistributing it as proprietary software).

That's why it's called Free Software and not Free Developers. The only restriction is that the code can't be made non free.

I don't think you quite understand. I know what the purpose of the GPL is. The GPL is, by design, a restriction on developer/distributor freedom hence the GPL not being "free as in speech".

[qdave]

This is the man who launched a public attack on Steve Jobs within a week of his death. He's an attention seeking clown.

Who is stuck in 90's.

[Athernar]

<snip>

Now look who's running in circles.

A person is free to do what they want with their derivative work under a permissive free license, you do not get to trump their freedom because you believe you are entitled to.

You're basically in effect arguing that your freedom to walk where you want should trump a person's freedom to privacy - and allow you to walk around their home at will. And that is just outright evil.

[ichi]

I don't think you quite understand. I know what the purpose of the GPL is. The GPL is, by design, a restriction on developer/distributor freedom hence the GPL not being "free as in speech".

See above, all licenses are restricting someone's freedom. If your point is that the GPL imposes restrictions then sure, of course it does. Every license does, else you wouldn't be using a license at all.

In the case of the GPL it's restricting distributors (and developers only if they also distribute the software, else no one frigging cares) because it emphasizes the freedom of the code. It has, as every other license, it's pros and cons, but Stallman values code being free and everyone being able to use it and modify it under the exact same conditions over giving distributors the rights to do as they please.

The GPL guarantees that you'll always be able to use the software and all of it's derivative works, and that's where the "freedom" part comes from: the code is free.

Other licenses like the BSD emphasize in the freedom for distributors to relicense the software if they feel like it. From a distributor perspective it's a lot more free, but on the other hand users aren't guaranteed the freedom to use all the derivative works under the same conditions as they did with the original software because that code isn't guaranteed to remain free, and the original author loses the freedom to be able to access to the code (or even be able to use, depending on the license it's released under) of every derivative work of his own code.

Regarding the "free as in speech": if we aren't allowed to take freedom away from others, does that mean we aren't free?

[ichi]

Now look who's running in circles.

A person is free to do what they want with their derivative work under a permissive free license, you do not get to trump their freedom because you believe you are entitled to.

I'm arguing that as author of a piece of software I'm entitled to require being free to access to code of the derivative works (assuming they'll be publicly distributed) exactly the same those willing to make derivative works are entitled to want to close the code they write. Depending on where we agree we will have to cut someone's freedom at one point or another.

If you feel that's abusive then why do you think it's right to trump the freedom of those developing derivative works to remove your copyright notice?

You are still not getting that the GPL is meant for the code to be free and stay free, not to grant freedoms to distributors.

You're basically in effect arguing that your freedom to walk where you want should trump a person's freedom to privacy - and allow you to walk around their home at will. And that is just outright evil.

My right to walk where I want surely might trump a person's freedom to privacy if that person is living in my house (depending on what kind of arrangement we have and why that person is living there).

No one's claiming I have any right to walk into any other person's house, the same as I can't claim rights over software that was developed completely independently from mine.

[Noir Angel]

I don't think you have ever read the GPL license since it imposes absolutely nothing on users, the terms only affect distributors.

The point is that if you redistribute GPL code (either the original software or a derivated work) you must do so with the same license so recipients can take advantage of it in the same way you did.

If you don't want to release GPL code then don't base your work on GPL code, as simple as that.

You can agree or disagree with the convenience of the license, but at least get it right before talking about slavery.

But that's not giving developers freedom at all. Let's face it, in any open source code model selling your software is going to be impossible, if you start charging someone else will just compile the code and release it for free. Open source development is great for users, not so great for developers, that's the point I'm trying to make. It's very difficult for any commercial product like a game to be released in it's entirety as FOSS.

And let's face it, it's not like Valve are stingy with developers, their editing tools give users full access to the engine's API's, making maps for Source games is easy if you have the knowhow.

[ichi]

But that's not giving developers freedom at all. Let's face it, in any open source code model selling your software is going to be impossible, if you start charging someone else will just compile the code and release it for free. Open source development is great for users, not so great for developers, that's the point I'm trying to make. It's very difficult for any commercial product like a game to be released in it's entirety as FOSS.

And let's face it, it's not like Valve are stingy with developers, their editing tools give users full access to the engine's API's, making maps for Source games is easy if you have the knowhow.

Which is why I don't agree with Stallman's vision of all software being FOSS. It's not that I disagree either, it would be nice (in an utopian way) if all sofware was developed as collaborative projects, but I'm more pragmatical and I see the advantages of other licenses.

I think anyway that Stallman believes that pure software should be developed free and likely in collaboration, and then it should be products based on those "basic" tools (eg. videogames with all the script and artwork) where you should focus on going for-profit.

Probably not sustainable either, but it's not like Stallman has his head so far up in the clouds as some people think.

[Athernar]

I'm arguing that as author of a piece of software I'm entitled to require being free to access to code of the derivative works (assuming they'll be publicly distributed) exactly the same those willing to make derivative works are entitled to want to close the code they write. Depending on where we agree we will have to cut someone's freedom at one point or another.

If you feel that's abusive then why do you think it's right to trump the freedom of those developing derivative works to remove your copyright notice?

You are still not getting that the GPL is meant for the code to be free and stay free, not to grant freedoms to distributors.

I believe you are now maliciously attempting to muddy the waters by diverting to the topic to the matter of breach of license and right to choice of license. Neither of which are relevant to the point.

GPL places restrictions, therefore is a non-free restrictive license, it really is as simple as that. Claiming otherwise is dishonest.

If I do not release my work which has been derived from freely licensed code, that is my freedom to do so. You do not get to take away my freedom just because you disgree with my choice of licensing, because you have the freedom to not use my work.

Use your precious GPL is you so wish, I have no issue with that. But please, do not lie to others when you claim your preferred license is free, when it clearly is not.

My right to walk where I want surely might trump a person's freedom to privacy if that person is living in my house (depending on what kind of arrangement we have and why that person is living there).

"depending on", so you conceed the point? Thank you, we're making progress.

[Noir Angel]

Which is why I don't agree with Stallman's vision of all software being FOSS. It's not that I disagree either, it would be nice (in an utopian way) if all sofware was developed as collaborative projects, but I'm more pragmatical and I see the advantages of other licenses.

Absolutely. Don't get me wrong I absolutely see the benefits of FOSS, I just disagree with Stallman's opinion. Although I don't use Linux much I use both open and closed source software with no qualms.

[ichi]

I believe you are now maliciously attempting to muddy the waters by diverting to the topic to the matter of breach of license and right to choice of license. Neither of which are relevant to the point.

GPL places restrictions, therefore is a non-free restrictive license, it really is as simple as that. Claiming otherwise is dishonest.

If I do not release my work which has been derived from freely licensed code, that is my freedom to do so. You do not get to take away my freedom just because you disgree with my choice of licensing, because you have the freedom to not use my work.

Use your precious GPL is you so wish, I have no issue with that. But please, do not lie to others when you claim your preferred license is free, when it clearly is not.

Of course the GPL is restrictive, I've clearly stated it above. All licenses impose restrictions, else you wouldn't need a license at all.

Your point was, though, that Stallman was trying to redefine "freedom", and that's where I disagree with you because you and Stallman are talking about freedom for a different set of subjets.

And no, BSD isn't "free for everyone" as the code can become non free, which you might consider irrelevant but that's actually the exact topic Stallman cares about.

"depending on", so you conceed the point? Thank you, we're making progress.

Concede what point? You are free to release you own original code written from scratch under whatever license you want, same as you are free to make whatever arrangement you want with anyone that comes to live in your house.

Have I ever claimed otherwise?