[JBroll]

25 years old today...

Welcome - Free Software Foundation - working together for free software

Jeff

 

[Soopahmahn]

Awesome that they've been around that long. Open document formats and DRM-free media is important.

 

[Kagami]

The free software gang is really cute :lol:

 

[DomitianX]

Glad they are still around, but the GPL is horrible. Forcing someone to give their code away for free is wrong. I prefer BSD licensing myself. There is nothing "free" about forcing someone to give away their software.

[action=DomitianX]puts on the flame retardant suit[/action]

 

[JBroll]

Glad they are still around, but the GPL is horrible. Forcing someone to give their code away for free is wrong. I prefer BSD licensing myself. There is nothing "free" about forcing someone to give away their software.

[action=DomitianX]puts on the flame retardant suit[/action]

Are you serious? Take off the suit, put on some reading glasses, and see what weaker licenses (similar to, but not including, the BSD-style licenses) led to before Stallman started the FSF and released so much under the GPL. Nobody is forcing you to give your code away! I can't even begin to imagine what kind of dementia would lead to such a conclusion, apart from drinking the wrong Flavor-Aid - you won't get flamed because people disagree, but you'll get plenty of heat because you're either trying to pick a fight or just dead wrong and spreading misinformation.

While you're at it, notice that FreeBSD, and the BSD community in general, gets FUCK-ALL from one of its biggest users - a certain *other* operating system developer that contributes nothing in return but has no trouble 'unofficially' (and falsely!) implying that its software gets amazing security because of its otherwise unacknowledged BSD foundation, a usable BSD system is guaranteed to have GNU/Linux software on it *unless specifically set up otherwise* because the BSD license, admirable as it is in many ways, still leaves the door wide open for proprietary 'developers' to barge in, steal the code, sell it as their own, and do nothing but leech and take the developers' code away from them. If you're going to bother being upset at this alleged code theft, at least look at the problems that *actually pop up* with licensing and 'forcing' developers to do things... or, if even that is too much, at least read a few entries on the GPL FAQ that clearly kill this stupid illusion off.

Jeff

 

[Kagami]

BSD license is part of why Mac OS X exists lol. If the GPL is too tight-wad for you check out the LGPL.

 

[JBroll]

I'm not against the BSD license, but it's not for everyone. Sometimes it's just too weak.

Jeff

 

[DomitianX]

Yeah.... I am serious.

My big problem with the GPL is that is way too confusing. As far as being able to charge for it, it depends on how you acquired any source code that you may have used.

GNU General Public License - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You cant distribute under a NDR, you cant do this, you cant do that. Your license cant be more restrictive than the license you acquired it under, etc.

BSD = Do whatever the hell you want with it, just dont cry to us when you fuck it up.

Thats not weaker, thats true freedom to do whatever you want.

I always laugh at the idea that you are free do do what you want to as long as you meet these sets of requirements.

Does that grant a person the right to acquire software and then turn and charge a zillion dollars for it? Yep, absolutely. Thats true freedom. Do whatever you want with it. Have fun.

I completely understand why some developers may like the idea of the GPL, but myself I prefer the BSD license when I really want something to be free to the world. I have written bits of code under the BSD and I have written code under the GPL. I would also add that I have written code under both licenses while being employed by one of the largest tech companies on the planet (fortune 15) and have sat in meetings with a dozen lawyers going over loopholes and differences in licenses and how we should release source code.

If you truly want to release "free" code, its under the BSD. If you want to ensure that certain requirements are met and that it remains "free of charge" you can use the GPL.

Putting requirements on how you release code and derivatives is not free. They are getting better with the latest version of the GPL, but they are not as free as the BSD license.

 

[DomitianX]

I'm not against the BSD license, but it's not for everyone. Sometimes it's just too weak.

Jeff

No its not weak, its truly free. If by weak you mean that if you release code under the BSD and Apple uses it to make a million dollars and you have no recourse as a guy that releas code under the BSD? Yeah then maybe, but thats not weak in my book. You get what you asked for. If you release something truly "free", its free. No requirements whatsoever.

If you want to "require" people to give it away for free, the GPL it.

 

[JBroll]

'Truly free' to do anything but protect itself! This is still nowhere near forcing someone to release his code under the GPL... just start from a different base or don't release binaries. The freedom they're after isn't 'everyone do whatever you want', their idea of freedom is guaranteeing *those rights* for the end user. You don't have to give back every change you make... just don't give binaries without source if the source was under GPL. The freedom to preserve isn't that of the thief or tyrant distributing others' work as his own but that of the end user.

For the real ugly side of this 'freedom', look back at what happened with nicer licenses when people in the AI lab got locked out of their own code. I think you're missing what kind of 'free' the FSF was after, since you're at least arguing from that side.

Jeff

 

[79]

Are you serious? Take off the suit, put on some reading glasses, and see what weaker licenses (similar to, but not including, the BSD-style licenses) led to before Stallman started the FSF and released so much under the GPL. Nobody is forcing you to give your code away! I can't even begin to imagine what kind of dementia would lead to such a conclusion, apart from drinking the wrong Flavor-Aid - you won't get flamed because people disagree, but you'll get plenty of heat because you're either trying to pick a fight or just dead wrong and spreading misinformation.

While you're at it, notice that FreeBSD, and the BSD community in general, gets FUCK-ALL from one of its biggest users - a certain *other* operating system developer that contributes nothing in return but has no trouble 'unofficially' (and falsely!) implying that its software gets amazing security because of its otherwise unacknowledged BSD foundation, a usable BSD system is guaranteed to have GNU/Linux software on it *unless specifically set up otherwise* because the BSD license, admirable as it is in many ways, still leaves the door wide open for proprietary 'developers' to barge in, steal the code, sell it as their own, and do nothing but leech and take the developers' code away from them. If you're going to bother being upset at this alleged code theft, at least look at the problems that *actually pop up* with licensing and 'forcing' developers to do things... or, if even that is too much, at least read a few entries on the GPL FAQ that clearly kill this stupid illusion off.

Jeff

Jesus Christ Jeff. Take a step back and re-read this post, then realize why people react to you the way that they do.

 

[DomitianX]

'Truly free' to do anything but protect itself! This is still nowhere near forcing someone to release his code under the GPL... just start from a different base or don't release binaries. The freedom they're after isn't 'everyone do whatever you want', their idea of freedom is guaranteeing *those rights* for the end user. You don't have to give back every change you make... just don't give binaries without source if the source was under GPL. The freedom to preserve isn't that of the thief or tyrant distributing others' work as his own but that of the end user.

For the real ugly side of this 'freedom', look back at what happened with nicer licenses when people in the AI lab got locked out of their own code. I think you're missing what kind of 'free' the FSF was after, since you're at least arguing from that side.

Jeff

just don't give binaries without source if the source was under GPL.

Again, there are stipulations to releasing code under the GPL. Its not truly "free" if you are forced to do something a certain way in order to use the GPL.

Like I said, they have come a long way since the first rev of the GPL, but as long as there are stipulations, its not truly free. It's free as long as you follow the rules.

It reminds of those free "ad" cars. Yep its free, but you have to drive so many miles a day, drive in certain areas of town, have an expected number of people that will see you each day, cant sell it, cant give it away, etc. But its free.

 

[JBroll]

Yes, but you're still missing the 'free' they have in mind and saying nothing about how people are forced to give their code away. The objective is the software's freedom, not the asshole's freedom.

Jeff

 

[JBroll]

Jesus Christ Jeff. Take a step back and re-read this post, then realize why people react to you the way that they do.

I knew what was coming from that one, and someone who walks into a thread celebrating the FSF to attack the license that made it all possible with misinformation is asking for it.

Jeff

 

[79]

I knew what was coming from that one, and someone who walks into a thread celebrating the FSF to attack the license that made it all possible with misinformation is asking for it.

Jeff

No, no one is asking for it. I think you'd find people will be receptive to your viewpoints if you were less inflammatory in your posts.

 

[Thomas]

Forcing someone to give their code away for free is wrong. I prefer BSD licensing myself. There is nothing "free" about forcing someone to give away their software.

I really dislike your use of the word forcing, as nobody is forcing you to do anything. If you don't like the license that comes with the code, then don't use it.

You also conveniently disregard the LGPL license, which allows the use of code with a closed-source program, without having to open the code of said program, and as long as you don't modify the LGPL'd code. Those are some very fair terms if you ask me.

The objective is the software's freedom, not the asshole's freedom.

This, and I really like your way of putting it. :lol:

 

[DomitianX]

I really dislike your use of the word forcing, as nobody is forcing you to do anything. If you don't like the license that comes with the code, then don't use it.

You also conveniently disregard the LGPL license, which allows the use of code with a closed-source program, without having to open the code of said program, and as long as you don't modify the LGPL'd code. Those are some very fair terms if you ask me.

This, and I really like your way of putting it. :lol:

I don't understand why people keep saying you are not forced to do anything. The whole point of the GPL is to force a developer to give away his source code.

If I create a piece of software that uses existing GPL'd code, or I develop code 100% my own and try to release it under the GPL, I am not free to do whatever I want with it. I am required (aka forced) to give away the source code. I cant make a binary of a program and distribute it without source code. I am forced to give away my source code.

I am also "forced" to release any modifications under the GPL as well. I cant release source code for the GPL's portions and binary my part of it, etc. Obviously thats not the optimal way to release software, but you should get my point.

Under the GPL its not entirely "free". You are forced to abide by the rules in the GPL in order to distribute code under the GPL.

Now... I understand the idea behind the GPL and I understand the downfalls of the BSD license, but to me if its truly free you can do whatever you want with it. The idea that the GPL is "free" is a misnomer. Its not free. Its free as long as you abide by the rules.

I didnt mean to turn this into a huge flame war, my initial comment about the flame retardant suit was an attempt at levity, I didnt honestly think it would get to the point of Jeff berating me for stating my opinion.

Like I said, glad they made it to 25, I just think its a horrible license.

 

[JBroll]

When you say 'I am forced to give away source *with my binary*' it becomes accurate and not the usual deranged misinformation - I'm not going to hold a gun to your head for using BSD and not SuperGPL v.666, but what you stated in the first post was just not right.

You're still evaluating 'free' at the wrong point... they're ensuring the freedom of the *software* for *all end users* (as well as the purity of its precious bodily fluids, of course). You can keep your source internal if you don't share binaries, or if you only share them within some organization for whose internal use the software was modified... but think of the end user of the software you redistribute - that's what the GPL is to protect.

We're not going to consider BSD as 'free' as GPL because the end user's freedom is what the whole thing is supposed to protect - your statement in your 'I am serious...' post shows only that you didn't get their objective and idea of freedom, and to say that you 'laugh at ...', without even indicating that you know that they're looking at a different kind of 'free' than you, is not a good start. I knew that you were joking with the flame-retardant suit comment, but the fact is that you phrased your complaints in a way that just isn't accurate and that's all I had issue with.

Finally... LGPL has been brought up a few times and seems to be what you wanted. Comments?

Jeff

 

[DomitianX]

When you say 'I am forced to give away source *with my binary*' it becomes accurate and not the usual deranged misinformation - I'm not going to hold a gun to your head for using BSD and not SuperGPL v.666, but what you stated in the first post was just not right.

You're still evaluating 'free' at the wrong point... they're ensuring the freedom of the *software* for *all end users* (as well as the purity of its precious bodily fluids, of course). You can keep your source internal if you don't share binaries, or if you only share them within some organization for whose internal use the software was modified... but think of the end user of the software you redistribute - that's what the GPL is to protect.

We're not going to consider BSD as 'free' as GPL because the end user's freedom is what the whole thing is supposed to protect - your statement in your 'I am serious...' post shows only that you didn't get their objective and idea of freedom, and to say that you 'laugh at ...', without even indicating that you know that they're looking at a different kind of 'free' than you, is not a good start. I knew that you were joking with the flame-retardant suit comment, but the fact is that you phrased your complaints in a way that just isn't accurate and that's all I had issue with.

Finally... LGPL has been brought up a few times and seems to be what you wanted. Comments?

Jeff

Its been a while since I have had someone nitpick comments. Actually... I think the last time it was you that nitpicked.

:rofl:

My "laugh at" comment was the general idea that people say something is free but with stipulations. If there are stipulations, its not truly free.

I always laugh at the idea that you are free do do what you want to as long as you meet these sets of requirements.

My "serious" comment was in regards to you "Are you serious" question. Yeah, I was serious that I think the GPL is a horrible license.

You can keep your source internal if you don't share binaries, or if you only share them within some organization for whose internal use the software was modified...

Obviously if you keep the source code/binaries internal and never share it, you dont have to share the source. Most people wouldnt apply a license to code they are not sharing. It would be part of their internal source code/IP vault. I have a few hundred thousand lines of code out there that have no license attached to them because they were developed for internal applications for a specific company. If at some point my employer decides to release them, they get to decide the license.

The GPL/LGPL/BSD licensing only comes into play when you share it with unknown parties on the intardweb. If its code shared between two companies, they would have a contract outlining the who's/why's/hows/etc.

I would concede that my first post is not accurate only in the fact that I didnt qualify it with "distributed" code.

I should have used:

Glad they are still around, but the GPL is horrible. Forcing someone to give their code away if they distribute an application that has GPL'd code for free is wrong. I prefer BSD licensing myself. There is nothing "free" about forcing someone to give away their software.

But I still think my initial post is valid. If you distribute software under the GPL, you are forced to give away the source code with it. LGPL is close, but you are still required to divulge the changes you made to the LGPL's code and its designed more for linked libraries rather than executable code.

 

[JBroll]

Their definition of free is not yours. What's so hard about that?

I knew that the 'serious' comment meant that you were serious.

Now that you rephrase it, I'm not going to object as much... but coming into an FSF thread to say that the GPL is horrible (not even that you think that it's horrible for this-and-that well-explained reason) is still in poor taste. You might as well be one of the bazillion jackasses who jumps into the LaBrie solo album threads to say how much you hate his voice...

Jeff