Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Motoko.

Stallman Calls Valve Games on Linux

148 posts in this topic

Let me tell a little story. I am an occasional reader of Neowin since I first came across it some years ago when announcements caught my eye, but this is a topic I came across that I am particularly passionate about and actually motivated me to register. Now, I am not going to reinforce Athernar's argument because I think he's absolutely right, and trying to say anything about the technical aspects of the license would just be redundant. It is restrictive (and therefore not free) by nature, and it is one of the reasons next to proprietary licenses that the term "permissive license" is in use now a days.

Now, back when rms (I affectionately referred to him as this until I stopped believing he was worthy of it) was pushing at full force and making some waves in the software community, I was one of the many people that saw him as a hero. And I still think he is in some ways, because the beautiful system we have here in our hacker communities wouldn't exist without the efforts of him and esr. Considering that, I was more than willing to look past some of his more... Dis-likable habits. He isn't a very sanitary and well kempt man, and despite the ridiculousness of it and the irony of this coming from someone that used to have long hair and a beard. People need not waste their time if the man delivering a message, regardless of its truth cannot summon the energy to trim and clean himself the first thing people will see is a lazy man and expect the message that is delivered to be lazy as well. So they move on, and this behavior is not an exception but the rule. I will not judge people harshly for this because the assumptions are natural.

Anyway, I strongly disagree with Majestic or whoever it was that said that a person who is alienated by one man did not bother to learn the message. The fact that I am writing this story and here disproves that, because if there is a message that Richard is putting across I (at the time) saw it and for years was (frequently still, depending on the project) involved with various GPL and LGPL licensed projects and free software was a dream for me, for lack of better words. I was tolerable of Stallman's tendency to reference and parody religious dogma and things like that (i.e. Saint Ignucious, editor virgins, etc.) because it was what it was, parody. I even tolerated his reference to terms that only a religious person would acknowledge in serious papers.

What alienated me was his persistence with this, after a while it turned into satire, and then annoying dogma in itself that Richard seemed to take seriously. It was no longer funny to me, and he has done this to people and companies I genuinely admire and respect. He ironically made me see the fundamental flaws in the GPL licenses by his preaching. If we make really high level abstractions like most people in this thread, save Athernar and a few others. We could even say that his attitude has turned the GPL itself into some kind of dogma. The attitudes and behavior of certain individuals in this thread seems to reinforce my thoughts here and possibly dangerous decision to call it a dogma.

I must again emphasize that I take my software and heroes of it such as esr, dmr, and so forth seriously. The realization was not a simple or easy one for me, I'm too manly to say I was hurt by it. But that's exactly how I was affected. Richard was no longer a good leader and even before people were making claims that he is now more of a harm to the free software communities than not I knew this. I will admit that I'm generally not a forgiving man, but this was one of my exceptions. But his weird and uncomfortable preaching disappointed me time and time again. So yes, it is definitely possible to be alienated by one man due to his attitude, appearance, and behavior. Regardless of the truth of the message in question. We're talking years here, I must remind you. Not months or days. I understand some of you are youngsters to the world of free software so the scale of time I'm talking about here might be hard to grasp, and it didn't help that during this time Richard's idea of freedom was hard to understand, and dare I say changing.

Additionally, it needs to be said but I know people aren't saying it because of the usual planned response of the initiator: Stop with the strawman arguments please. Freedom to remove freedom is a long used paradox, and a silly one because it just doesn't work that way, stop trying to force what constitutes hyperbole. It was already said hyperbole is hyperbole, stop using buzzwords where they either are obvious, unneeded, or just don't make sense. As hackers or potential hackers you should all know that forcing the wrong solution to a problem that will only exasperate it is futile and unrewarding.

Furthermore, as far as the nature of tools provided by companies to work with their system. Yes releasing the code to the engine itself and all the tools will always be the most optimal solution, but in the real world the usefulness and expansiveness of these tools cannot be discarded as "basic". Valve for example provides things such as a project manager for making mods or complete Source games, the Source filmmaker, the Hammer map editor, HLMV, and other things that I have used personally in the past but currently can't remember. Given the creativeness and success of some third party Source games, these are things that need to be acknowledged and not dismissed as "basic".

Richard does not investigate these things himself, and has his assistant(s) who have their own bias and interpretation of the message do the research for him and draft notes, and given my experience with this and first hand knowledge of things such as his .emacs, filled with macro table rows that he pastes in his mails. Those macros and other contents of his machine is both a different story and not my business to post. Since I still do respect his privacy and always will, regardless of my hurt or anger towards him. Though I'm deviating from the topic and I apologize for that. I have more to say, but chances are this isn't continued. I keep mostly quiet about my past experiences with Richard, the FSF, and GNU, but I occasionally have stories to tell. I will now post the obligatory note that I currently only use permissive licenses (ISC is my favorite at the moment) in my projects. But some old ones out there that may or may not be maintained still use the GPL and will not change based on the fact that the authors may not want it and I will not insult them by forcing my realizations on them.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has already been covered. You're just looping back over yourself now.

The restrictions make the GPL non-free, with an illusion of freedom that is created by the imposition of external interests over the individual's freedom.

Of course I'm looping: I'm having to break the same simple concepts for you over and over when the best rebuttal you can come up with is "but distributors aren't free" and some gibberish about slavery.

Let me ask you something: won't you be by any chance one of those BSD supporters that go all angry over Linux devs that relicense BSD code, right?

And while we are at it let me ask you another question: do you think that Linux contributors are enslaved? And if so, why did they choose to contribute to Linux and not any of the different BSD variants?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<snipped for brevity>

Insightful, you should post more often :).

I just want to point out that my position on the GPL aligns with both your and Athernars. I don't like it because I don't want to impose restrictions on developers (rather than forcing the code to remain available through all it's iterations), and I see it as a vain attempt to keep the hacker ethos alive by shoving it down people's throats. Personally, I've generally used Creative Commons Attribution (i.e. do what you want, but give me credit where it's due). The free-est license of all with regard to derivative rights is obviously public domain. I was simply trying to explain how the GPL can be perceived as a free license. It uses the same definitions intellectual property as the media organisations do (i.e. copies are still the original product). Personally I see that as bad, but I see it. Other licenses that offer the developer more freedoms do not look at it this way, and consider all the original code, as part of the derived works. It's a fundamental difference that many people don't get. I don't really see what I say as being a strawman argument, but simply a different interpretation of how "software freedom" is described.

Anyway, I was never looking to start all this bickering about the intricacies of the GPL. My initial point was, that regardless of the man himself, the ideas he stands by are valid. Regardless of how socially retarded he is, the ideas behind making source code available and allowing the user to use the software however they want are noble and beneficial for the user, but make a profitable software market difficult (companies like Redhat being the exception rather than the rule), this is where most people (myself included) start distancing themselves from free software ideals, and rightly so.

I agree entirely that the guy is a bad role model for the FOSS movement, because of everything you describe, but I don't think there's anyone here that would disagree that he stands for noble ideals. The things he discuss, like the Valve implementing DRM on Linux, are concerns for free software (DRM exists solely to take freedom from the user), but again people reject FOSS ideas because of who it is that says them. If you look at the underlying point, then he's right. You don't have to agree with his views, or even listen to the guy, but as long as you know the ideas his ranting stems from, you can see where he's coming from.

Honestly I don't pay enough attention to RMS to read his preaching, simply when his discussion makes it into my new feed (like this time) exactly because of the problems you describe, but that doesn't mean that I don't listen to the general viewpoint he tries to get across. I admit that I'm not entirely a "free software forever" preacher, I take the bits of the FOSS manifesto that I like and disregard the rest.

One issue with your point though:

Anyway, I strongly disagree with Majestic or whoever it was that said that a person who is alienated by one man did not bother to learn the message.

That wasn't what I meant at all. I meant that a person who chooses not to learn about free software and what it means because of the appearance of one man is ignorant. Hate the player, not the game. People that don't want to associate themselves with free software because of the rantings of one man are needlessly limiting their options. It's also hypocritical since there are plenty of undesirable people that write proprietary software too (I know from experience), so by that logic those people shouldn't be using software at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course I'm looping: I'm having to break the same simple concepts for you over and over when the best rebuttal you can come up with is "but distributors aren't free" and some gibberish about slavery.

You keep repeating yourself and claiming I don't understand, when I've more than proven I fully understand the idea behind the GPL, I just don't agree and have proven in this thread that the GPL is a non-free license by standard definitions. (I couldn't care less about what Stallman's proprietary definitions are)

You're on the exact same level as a theist in a religion debate at this point, I can lay out all the various points about evolution and the age of the earth, or pick apart morality; but all you're ever going to do is repeat "GOD EXISTS GOD EXISTS GOD EXISTS GOD EXISTS" until I stop challenging your viewpoint.

Let me ask you something: won't you be by any chance one of those BSD supporters that go all angry over Linux devs that relicense BSD code, right?

No I'm not, but I'll answer your strawman anyway. Taking a permissively licensed work and simply re-licensing it under the GPL without any modification is pretty damn scummy.

It may certainly be perfectly permissable thanks to the freedom a permissive license grants, but it's still a disgustingly fanatical, ignorant thing to do.

But then again, that's all part of freedom isn't it? You've got to let the bad guys have access too. Just another point that proves that the GPL is non-free.

And while we are at it let me ask you another question: do you think that Linux contributors are enslaved? And if so, why did they choose to contribute to Linux and not any of the different BSD variants?

The irony of such a question is amusing. Allow me to answer your question with a question.

Why are the majority of games Windows only?

And do I think Linux contributors are enslaved? That depends on what you mean by Linux.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You keep repeating yourself and claiming I don't understand, when I've more than proven I fully understand the idea behind the GPL,

Really? I don't think so.

I just don't agree

Fair enough.

and have proven in this thread that the GPL is a non-free license by standard definitions. (I couldn't care less about what Stallman's proprietary definitions are)

As you clearly stated earlier, the reason you think that is because in your opinion "the focus is on the developers".

So you haven't provided more proof than your opinion, but still I'm not arguing the label you might want to stick on the license as I couldn't care less about that. What I've been arguing are the slavery and "illusion of freedom" gibberish.

You're on the exact same level as a theist in a religion debate at this point, I can lay out all the various points about evolution and the age of the earth, or pick apart morality; but all you're ever going to do is repeat "GOD EXISTS GOD EXISTS GOD EXISTS GOD EXISTS" until I stop challenging your viewpoint.

That's funny because the only single points you have been raising are the "but the distributors...", "slavery" and "illusion of freedom" mantra.

No I'm not, but I'll answer your strawman anyway. Taking a permissively licensed work and simply re-licensing it under the GPL without any modification is pretty damn scummy.

It may certainly be perfectly permissable thanks to the freedom a permissive license grants, but it's still a disgustingly fanatical, ignorant thing to do.

But then again, that's all part of freedom isn't it? You've got to let the bad guys have access too. Just another point that proves that the GPL is non-free.

How is it scummy when that's the whole point of the BSD and the difference that you keep bringing up as a "holier than thou" virtue?

If you don't want devs to relicense your code, why are you using a license that explicitly allows that?

The irony of such a question is amusing. Allow me to answer your question with a question.

Why are the majority of games Windows only?

And do I think Linux contributors are enslaved? That depends on what you mean by Linux.

The majority of computer games are Windows only because that's where most users play.

But I'm talking about kernel contributors anyway, so again: if GPL enslaves devs, why are they choosing to contribute to Linux and not BSD?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh, I'm all for open rights and whatnot but people like this guy are WAY too anal about it.

Great if something's open source and free to all but it's not a viable business model.

Agreed. Honestly. If your option is to have these games or software on your computer or not have them supported, which one would you choose? I disagree entirely with DRM installed when you play a CD as Sony did, or DRM that's there just for the sake of being there, but this is a little bit different. For starters, I believe they update this regularly so it should be less of a security risk, and for second, it's essentially policing a service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? I don't think so.

You think wrong then.

As you clearly stated earlier, the reason you think that is because in your opinion "the focus is on the developers".

So you haven't provided more proof than your opinion, but still I'm not arguing the label you might want to stick on the license as I couldn't care less about that. What I've been arguing are the slavery and "illusion of freedom" gibberish.

The label I want to stick? It's not a label, it's a simple fact. Deal with it.

You've been sitting here trying to argue that the GPL counts as free software when it clearly it is not, don't try and backpedal because you know you're wrong.

That's funny because the only single points you have been raising are the "but the distributors...", "slavery" and "illusion of freedom" mantra.

I'm sorry if the truth is too much for you to handle. The cognitive dissonance must be pretty painful for you.

How is it scummy when that's the whole point of the BSD and the difference that you keep bringing up as a "holier than thou" virtue?

If you don't want devs to relicense your code, why are you using a license that explicitly allows that?

It's scummy because it's bad manners. No different than someone closing the code of a derivative.

Just because you have the right to do something, does not mean you should do it. Come on ichi, this is basic stuff here. We're talking childhood 101 here.

I may not want devs personally to relicense my code or to close the source of a derivative, but that is a consequence of embracing freedom. Are you so blind to the real definition of freedom you cannot see this?

The majority of computer games are Windows only because that's where most users play.

But I'm talking about kernel contributors anyway, so again: if GPL enslaves devs, why are they choosing to contribute to Linux and not BSD?

Congratulations on answering your own question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You think wrong then.

:rolleyes:

The label I want to stick? It's not a label, it's a simple fact. Deal with it.

You've been sitting here trying to argue that the GPL counts as free software when it clearly it is not, don't try and backpedal because you know you're wrong.

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.

I'm sorry if the truth is too much for you to handle. The cognitive dissonance must be pretty painful for you.

Cute :laugh: Well, it's quite funny how you fall to the same level of bull**** rethoric as Stallman when demonizing a license you don't agree with.

It's scummy because it's bad manners. No different than someone closing the code of a derivative.

Just because you have the right to do something, does not mean you should do it. Come on ichi, this is basic stuff here. We're talking childhood 101 here.

I may not want devs personally to relicense my code or to close the source of a derivative, but that is a consequence of embracing freedom. Are you so blind to the real definition of freedom you cannot see this?

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.

As I said above, it's ironic how your way of vilifying ideas you don't agree with turns to be so close to Stallman's :D

Congratulations on answering your own question.

Nice try at dodging 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".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've been sitting here trying to argue that the GPL counts as free software when it clearly it is not.

By the way, I take you actually meant "free license" and not "free software", because GPL licensed code is free software by the very definition of the Free Software term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.