Jump to content



Photo

Stallman Calls Valve Games on Linux ‘Unethical’


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
147 replies to this topic

#136 Athernar

Athernar

    ?

  • Joined: 15-December 04

Posted 08 August 2012 - 16:18

I'll put it short and clear because you seem to be utterly confused:

-I don't care if you don't consider GPL to be a "free license". I don't agree with your opinion on that, but I take it as just that, an opinion, and that's not what I've been arguing about (since you seem to be impervious to the concept and value of software itself being free it would be pointless arguing with you anyway, it's like talking to a wall). Go back and re-read my posts.
-You are perfectly entitled to not liking the GPL. Again that's up to who's freedom you value, and since (as you stated before) your focus in on distributors and you don't see value in code itself being free, it's completely reasonable that you prefer BSD-style licenses.
-What I take issue with is all the nonsense about slavery and deception, using Stallman's level rethoric.


Sorry ichi, but it's not an opinion - it's a fact. A very simple, proven fact that I've logically explained why it can't be true. The sheer hypocracy of you claiming -I- am the brick wall, when you've done nothing to actually read and follow the thread, and have merely parroted hollow, canned responses like some sort of bot.

Stallman resorts to using his own proprietary definitions and re-definitions of words to favour his cause, his misappropriation of the term "freedom" to refer to something that is only free in his opinion is dishonest and misleading.

I have numerous times, logically gone through the flow why the restrictions makes the GPL non-free, for you to only then jump back to a previous point in time and start parroting a point that we've already discussed.

I did not start out using Stallman's own brand of rhetoric, but in the face of you being clearly not interested to follow the topic I felt it would be the better means of communicating with someone who obviously is not interested in a reasoned discussion, and merely wants everyone to accept his word verbatim.

Are you so fanatic that you have to look down on everyone who doesn't agree with your own values?

What's the point of freedom if you are goint to bitch about what other people do with it? That comes as quite hypocritical, you are complaining about people doing exactly the only single thing BSD allows that GPL does not.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.

The usual argument of BSD supporters is that it doesn't matter if someone takes your source and closes it because your original source still remains free, so why do you care if someone takes a BSD source and distributes it under a license that better fits other use cases? Because that's they whole reason of re-licensing it under the GPL.


Oh ichi, did you even bother to read the section you're replying to here? I very clearly explained it.

How large a font-size am I going to have to make the sentance where I point out the obvious disconnect between permitting something out of principal (freedom) - and having to like it? 72pt maybe?

You're basically saying to support freedom of speech, you would have to accept and agree with every possible viewpoint that results from said freedom. Do I also have to point out how absurd and impossible that would be to you?

Nice try at dodging it.


I didn't dodge it at all, but since you evidently can't see beyond your own nose I'll "break it down" for you.

Windows is the most used platform, Linux is the most used open-source kernel. Get it?

You would think that, say, Oracle would have released Unbreakable BSD instead of Unbreakable Linux (considering that the whole point of the distro was just running their own proprietary DB) if they felt they were being "enslaved" by the license. And by releasing a BSD OS they'd also submit their contributions to BSD and not to the Linux kernel, again if only to not be "enslaved".


I don't think Oracle would know sense if it slapped them in the face. Or any large multi-layered corporation packed to the brim with know-nothing managers for that matter. Hell, that lack of sense is why we're here in the first place.


#137 +OOOOOOOO

OOOOOOOO

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 21-September 04

Posted 08 August 2012 - 16:22

He believes that software should be like human languages. Free for anyone to learn, modify or invent. If you invent a word and it gets notoriety you don't "own" that word as anyone can use it for free, they can modify it, say their modification and show others how to say your word. No royalty, no "word police" telling you that you are unauthorized to use that word without paying a license fee.

So when Steam launches on linux and it sells games and locks them behind digital rights management (you need to login to access your games after paying a license fee to play them) it goes against his principles that software should be open and free for modification and redistribution.

He is against closed source software from a fundamental freedom paradigm where by he believes all people should have access to the source code of software so that they can learn from it, modify it, improve it, fork it, redistribute it etc

I guess he could be described as the ultimate socialist I don't think in his world it is really possible to own a piece of software. I don't agree with his views, I think developers should have the choice to release open or closed software and deserve the right to decide who can and cannot use their software based on any criteria they like including a monetary one.


He's an idealist moron. I don't care what he's the 'father' of. He's an idiot. People get into this business to earn money for the most part, and they damn well should earn good money from their products. It's hard working developing top class applications and games.

#138 +Majesticmerc

Majesticmerc

    Resident Idealist

  • Tech Issues Solved: 8
  • Joined: 24-August 05
  • Location: United Kingdom
  • OS: Arch Linux / Win 7
  • Phone: HTC One X

Posted 08 August 2012 - 16:56

OK I think this topic could do with closing or abandoning. Everyone's expressed an opinion, nobody's going to change their views, and there's no need to resort to insults.

#139 ichi

ichi

    Akihabara Style

  • Tech Issues Solved: 4
  • Joined: 20-December 04

Posted 08 August 2012 - 21:04

<snip>


I'll just make one last attempt going with english 101, since logic doesn't seem to be working with you.

Free Software.

See, we have two words there: and adjective (Free) and a noun (Software). The adjective qualifies the noun.
So the Software is Free.

Did you see a Free Developer there? No, right?
And a Free Distributor? Again no.

I'll point it out again to make it clear: it's the software that's free.

Now, why is the GPL Free Software? Because software licensed under the GPL has perpetual freedom. The license itself forbids removing the "free" part from the code, so there's no way you can make GPL software "non-free".
That software won't ever get closed, so you'll be always able to run it, see and modify the code, redistribute copies to anyone, improve it and release those improvements (qualities which happen to be exactly the features that define what can be considered Free Software).

If you still can't get that then there's no point in arguing further.


I'll give you some homework though, just in case: find a formal definition (that is, not something you make up in the spot) of Free Software that disqualifies the GPL as such.

Windows is the most used platform, Linux is the most used open-source kernel. Get it?


Let's assume they are now contributing because of that (even while in some cases it doesn't matter): out of all the possible open-source projects, how comes that it was the only single one with a GPL license who attracted the most contributors and came to be the most widely used and contributed OS kernel?

#140 Javik

Javik

    Beware the tyrrany of those that wield power

  • Tech Issues Solved: 2
  • Joined: 21-May 12

Posted 08 August 2012 - 22:27

Technically any software that you don't have to pay money for is free. He's just using it as a term to evangelise his own idealism, 99% of users won't give a flying feck whether they can edit the source code of the software they use or not because they simply don't know how to do it. Being Open Source isn't some magic barrier that makes software immune to being crap, it's not the holy grail of software development. It's an ideal, and like all ideals it will have it's supporters and it's detractors. Trying to strong arm people into following your own paradigms, regardless of how noble your intentions is a form of fascism, and by trying to talk Linux users into not using proprietary software he's imposing his ideals upon them.

#141 Athernar

Athernar

    ?

  • Joined: 15-December 04

Posted 08 August 2012 - 23:25

I'll just make one last attempt going with english 101, since logic doesn't seem to be working with you.

Free Software.

See, we have two words there: and adjective (Free) and a noun (Software). The adjective qualifies the noun.
So the Software is Free.

Did you see a Free Developer there? No, right?
And a Free Distributor? Again no.

I'll point it out again to make it clear: it's the software that's free.

Now, why is the GPL Free Software? Because software licensed under the GPL has perpetual freedom. The license itself forbids removing the "free" part from the code, so there's no way you can make GPL software "non-free".
That software won't ever get closed, so you'll be always able to run it, see and modify the code, redistribute copies to anyone, improve it and release those improvements (qualities which happen to be exactly the features that define what can be considered Free Software).

If you still can't get that then there's no point in arguing further.


"Free" "Software"

"Free" as in "Freedom" not "Free Beer"

The benefit of "Free software" being you get "freedom" of action with said software.

Such actions that would be possible under the definition of "freedom" would include:

1) Using the original software freely
2) Altering the software freely
3) Redistributing the software freely
4) Redistributing your alterations freely
5) Relicensing the software freely
6) Not doing any of the above

The GPL disallows #4 and #5, the software is not "free" to be relicensed or redistributed. Therefore the software has had some of it's freedoms stripped away to further the agenda of the GPL.

Therefore the GPL is provedly not "free", as restrictions have been placed on what can be done with the software. The software is not free.

I'll give you some homework though, just in case: find a formal definition (that is, not something you make up in the spot) of Free Software that disqualifies the GPL as such.


Definition of freedom
noun
[mass noun]
1. the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants: we do have some freedom of choice


Let's assume they are now contributing because of that (even while in some cases it doesn't matter): out of all the possible open-source projects, how comes that it was the only single one with a GPL license who attracted the most contributors and came to be the most widely used and contributed OS kernel?


How come closed-source software products became the dominant desktop operating systems despite there being alternatives that are both gratis and open-source?

#142 Lagg

Lagg

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 07-August 12

Posted 08 August 2012 - 23:38

I think it should be mentioned that (I'm guessing) Athernar is referring to the fact that you are required to redistribute the relevant code if you redistribute your modifications. That is another attribute of the GPL that is decidedly not in support of freedom. Furthermore a few things in regards to the kernel. Kernels have always been a fun learning exercise that people attempted and re-attempted then thrown away again, trying out new architectures as they go. Linus was one of those few that happened to desire a practical, reasonably well performing monolithic kernel. He even said so in one of the first announcement posts as I recall. This combined with his good timing and willingness to voice himself, and of course his competency was the deciding factor in the kernel's success. Not the license. Being someone that has actually managed to complete a minimal kernel project in the past I find this pretty insulting. I would imagine Linus would too.

Much of the most well known and successful free software projects were born from a desire to solve a unique problem coming from a classic hacker mindset. I guarantee you what license it was under was one of the last things on anyone's mind.

Edit: I was also going to further my point by noting that going by Ichi's logic, Hurd should have flown past linux a few times over. However since I never did involve myself with it too much (a decision I still sometimes regret because of technical interest) it could be anything, from Stallman's lack of familiarity with the architecture to him trying to get people to do it for him instead of being hands on.

#143 ichi

ichi

    Akihabara Style

  • Tech Issues Solved: 4
  • Joined: 20-December 04

Posted 09 August 2012 - 08:05

"Free" "Software"

"Free" as in "Freedom" not "Free Beer"

The benefit of "Free software" being you get "freedom" of action with said software.


Because of the inherent quality of the free software being free.

Being able to relicense the software gives you more freedom, but does nothing to increase the freedom of the actual code (actually the opposite). In both cases (being able to relicense and not being able to do so) the software is free, it's the developer/distributor who gets more or less rights.

Such actions that would be possible under the definition of "freedom" would include:

1) Using the original software freely
2) Altering the software freely
3) Redistributing the software freely
4) Redistributing your alterations freely
5) Relicensing the software freely
6) Not doing any of the above

The GPL disallows #4 and #5, the software is not "free" to be relicensed or redistributed. Therefore the software has had some of it's freedoms stripped away to further the agenda of the GPL.


*sigh*

Relicensing is freedom for developers/distributors. When it comes to the actual code, being able to be dispossessed of it's freedom does quite obviously not increase it.

By they way, while you managed to use a dictionary to find "freedom" you didn't provide a formal definition of Free Software yet.

How come closed-source software products became the dominant desktop operating systems despite there being alternatives that are both gratis and open-source?


Apples and oranges. You don't see third parties running en masse to contribute code to that proprietary kernel under Microsoft's proprietary license, do you?

The point is that you wouldn't get volunteers and companies to contribute code over all these years under a license that was "enslaving" and based on deception.

This combined with his good timing and willingness to voice himself, and of course his competency was the deciding factor in the kernel's success. Not the license.


Way to miss the point: Athernar's stance on the GPL is that it enslaves developers and is based on deception over an illusion of freedom, qualities that surely wouldn't get much people to contribute.

I don't know if Linux would find that insulting. He most likely wouldn't give a damn about opinions regarding the license, but the implications about his motives for choosing it are kind of offensive.

#144 Athernar

Athernar

    ?

  • Joined: 15-December 04

Posted 09 August 2012 - 15:59

Because of the inherent quality of the free software being free.

Being able to relicense the software gives you more freedom, but does nothing to increase the freedom of the actual code (actually the opposite). In both cases (being able to relicense and not being able to do so) the software is free, it's the developer/distributor who gets more or less rights.


It does increase the freedom of the code. As the code has more rights as to what can be done with it. Use, alteration, redistribution and relicensing are all actions that include the code.

Stop playing dumb ichi. You know you're wrong, you just don't want to admit it. Or are you going to try and claim relicensing doesn't involve the code so you don't have to admit you're wrong? :laugh:

Relicensing is freedom for developers/distributors. When it comes to the actual code, being able to be dispossessed of it's freedom does quite obviously not increase it.

By they way, while you managed to use a dictionary to find "freedom" you didn't provide a formal definition of Free Software yet.


No, relicensing is freedom for the software, the distributor/developer is not the one being relicensed.

"Free software" is not a word, it's a combination of the words "freedom" and "software", we know what software is, so I provided the definition of freedom.

Apples and oranges. You don't see third parties running en masse to contribute code to that proprietary kernel under Microsoft's proprietary license, do you?

The point is that you wouldn't get volunteers and companies to contribute code over all these years under a license that was "enslaving" and based on deception.


Duh. It's called closed-source for a reason, and I fail to see what relevance the source model is. It's popular, people use popular.

Linux is the most popular open-source kernel, people use popular.

Way to miss the point: Athernar's stance on the GPL is that it enslaves developers and is based on deception over an illusion of freedom, qualities that surely wouldn't get much people to contribute.

I don't know if Linux would find that insulting. He most likely wouldn't give a damn about opinions regarding the license, but the implications about his motives for choosing it are kind of offensive.


If it's an illusion of freedom, then they would be decieved into thinking they're contributing to something that is free then wouldn't they? Do you even know what deception means? :rolleyes:

Infact, I'm rapidly starting to believe you don't understand what a lot of the definitions being used in this discussion are, and you're just parroting Stallman himself at this point.

#145 ichi

ichi

    Akihabara Style

  • Tech Issues Solved: 4
  • Joined: 20-December 04

Posted 09 August 2012 - 17:14

It does increase the freedom of the code. As the code has more rights as to what can be done with it. Use, alteration, redistribution and relicensing are all actions that include the code.

Stop playing dumb ichi. You know you're wrong, you just don't want to admit it. Or are you going to try and claim relicensing doesn't involve the code so you don't have to admit you're wrong? :laugh:

No, relicensing is freedom for the software, the distributor/developer is not the one being relicensed.


That's about as dumb as saying that passing a law that grants others the right to enslave you would make you more free.
Wait no, actually it's exactly in the same level of dumbness.

"Free software" is not a word, it's a combination of the words "freedom" and "software"


No **** sherlock. Do you know what a term is?

Still waiting for a formal definition that disqualifies the GPL.


Duh. It's called closed-source for a reason, and I fail to see what relevance the source model is. It's popular, people use popular.

Linux is the most popular open-source kernel, people use popular.


People use popular stuff, but people don't contribute to a project with an "enslaving license based on deception" all they way from a newsgroup post to being the most widely used open source kernel.

If it's an illusion of freedom, then they would be decieved into thinking they're contributing to something that is free then wouldn't they? Do you even know what deception means? :rolleyes:


Huh, sure, all the contributors (both all the volunteers and the over 800 companies) have been deceived for about 20 years :rolleyes: you should be getting a clue already about how stupid your argument is instead of trying to be funny (then again maybe you are going with the later because you already realized the former).

Do you really think IBM, Intel or HP give a flying **** about who Stallman is or anything he has to say, anyway?

Infact, I'm rapidly starting to believe you don't understand what a lot of the definitions being used in this discussion are, and you're just parroting Stallman himself at this point.


Says the guy who can't tell which noun an adjective is qualifying :/

Remember when a couple of posts above I told you there was no point in further arguing with you if you still were unable to grasp the simple concept I was breaking down for you? Well, until you go and provide the formal definition I was asking for instead of grasping at straws trying to pass your opinion as facts I won't bother replying again.

#146 tiagosilva29

tiagosilva29

    You might think that, I couldn't possibly comment.

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 08-May 04
  • Phone: I need a new one. Gibe moni plos

Posted 09 August 2012 - 17:29

I can't believe this thread is still going and going on understanding free software.

Not that I'm not complaining or anything, this has been quite an exciting tennis match. <sarcasm>

#147 Athernar

Athernar

    ?

  • Joined: 15-December 04

Posted 09 August 2012 - 18:48

That's about as dumb as saying that passing a law that grants others the right to enslave you would make you more free.
Wait no, actually it's exactly in the same level of dumbness.


The fact you think the human slavery is anything remotely comparable to some nerds squabbling over software licensing is absolutely disgusting.

Human slavery takes away all freedoms, an individual still has freedom to refuse to use derivative closed-source software. That freedom is why the software's freedom to be relicensed takes precedence.

No **** sherlock. Do you know what a term is?

Still waiting for a formal definition that disqualifies the GPL.


And I gave you one. You have the definition for freedom, and the definition for software. Stick them together.

People use popular stuff, but people don't contribute to a project with an "enslaving license based on deception" all they way from a newsgroup post to being the most widely used open source kernel.


I find it hilarious you are still completely unable to grasp the concept of "deception".

Huh, sure, all the contributors (both all the volunteers and the over 800 companies) have been deceived for about 20 years :rolleyes: you should be getting a clue already about how stupid your argument is instead of trying to be funny (then again maybe you are going with the later because you already realized the former).


Wow. Have you ever heard of religion? You know, where people believe that there is an all-powerful being in the sky despite there being no hard evidence for over 2000 years?

Do you really think IBM, Intel or HP give a flying **** about who Stallman is or anything he has to say, anyway?


Do people care about Steve Ballmer? Considering his position at Microsoft and comments regarding Google I'd say yes.

So do people care about RMS? As the president of the FSF, I'd say yes to that too.

Remember when a couple of posts above I told you there was no point in further arguing with you if you still were unable to grasp the simple concept I was breaking down for you? Well, until you go and provide the formal definition I was asking for instead of grasping at straws trying to pass your opinion as facts I won't bother replying again.


Aw, you going to run away? Darn. :(

#148 Charisma

Charisma

    e-1337-ist

  • Joined: 02-May 10
  • Location: Galactic Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha

Posted 09 August 2012 - 19:53

OK I think this topic could do with closing or abandoning. Everyone's expressed an opinion, nobody's going to change their views, and there's no need to resort to insults.

Couldn't have said it better myself, so I won't reiterate. Thread closed.