I created this thread in order to clarify any confusion that people may have about free software, the GNU licences, and why society cannot be free whenever users accept proprietary software. ITT, I will be using the GNU project's definition of free software. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Proprietary software is designed to make users helpless. Without the liberty to run a program, a user is helpless. Without the right to the code, users can not help themselves whenever the program needs to be changed. The user MUST obtain the permission of the master of the program before the program can be changed to suit the user. This means that the user is no longer autonomous; the user not free to help themselves. Individuals need freedoms 0 and 1 in order to be free.
Proprietary software is designed to divide society. Society advances whenever communities cooperate with each other to further their standing. It is alright if members of society do not want to cooperate with others. It is not alright for a master to divide members of society that do want to cooperate by preventing them the right to share resources (such as information or tools) and preventing them the right to use those resources. Without the liberty to share programs, users cannot cooperate with their community; society is divided from helping each other. Society needs freedoms 2 and 3 in order to be free.
Society should not have to live helpless and divided but this is what happens whenever society accepts proprietary software. If all users had the four freedoms, then the GNU General Public License would be useless; nobody would be subject to helplessness or divided from their communities; there won't be any need to guarantee the four freedoms as everybody would already have the right to practise them. The reality is, people will subjugate other people into helplessness and division through software. Having the power to subjugate users is not a power worth protecting. The GPL guarantees that everyone has the right to live in freedom by removing the power to subjugate any user.
In conclusion, to accept any proprietary program means that you find it acceptable to give up your freedom and give to the master of the software. To accept any proprietary program means that you find it acceptable to trade away your freedom for convenience. You should get rid of all your proprietary programs if you wish to be free.
Didn't know Stallman posted here.
TL;DR: GPL is designed to protect freedom as true freedom is only possible when you have the power to enforce it on the unsers against their will.
[b][i][o][u]EXPERT LICENSERS[/u][/o][/i][/b]
have you read your "the cathedral and the bazaar" today?
You have been caught thinking this is /prog2/
>>3
The GPL is a distribution licence, not a usage licence. So how does somebody get compelled to distribute software against their will?
It's free just as a trojan horse is free.
The big idea is to have uneducated commercial vendors use GPL code, then they get found out, and "Oh boy do I have some great news for you, welcome to the wonderful world of open-source, which now includes your commercial product. gg no re"
I'm not making this up, it's explicitly stated in the LGPL documentation.
It's explicitly stated in the GPL documentation. The LGPL has no such provisions.
Free Software is a moral thing: When someone buys software that they have the right to change and fix (see http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html for details of software users rights) but because their vendor is dishonest and a trickster, they don't have the ability to exercise their rights; Without source code you cannot exercise your rights.
Someone using legal trickery to deny you your rights is being immoral. You can say that you need to kill thousands of greeks in order to make money, but that just demonstrates how your work isn't that valuable to begin with, and doesn't make it right.
>>10
The big idea of GPL:
Call your software "free" so stupid commercial developers will re-use your code in closed-source products. Then Richard's lawyers give you a nice call, "GPL your product or hand over the cash".
Then you badmouth people using the MIT/BSD licenses for being "less free" as they are not viral (which means that you can include BSD-licensed code in a commercial product).
RMS loves to play with words to deceive. For example he tells you to modify the meaning of the acronyms used by your opponents (without specifying that you changed the meaning). http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html
Most nerds may be sympathetic to many of his goals, but his frequent dick moves such as this example means that he is a major douche.
tl;dr: let's all start calling GPL the "GNAA Prohibitive License".
That may have happened to some naive programmers working professionally for the first time, but since then free software proponents have been careful to emphasize the "free as in speech, not free as in beer," meaning of free software.
Seriously, did you get burned because you failed to read the not-even-fine print? Is that why you hate the GPL so much?
Of course not. I've distributed mit-licensed code and sent simple patches to a few projects using a variety of licenses, and I don't care to have some assholes like RMS or ESR pretend that I'm part of their movement and support their agendas just because I happen to have distributed source code for free.
I may agree with them on many issues, but people who use the GPL without specifying a version rarely realize that their project are pawns at the mercy of the evolving agenda of the FSF.
Many just want to get the code out of there, freak out at the permissiveness of the BDS-style license, and resort to the only other license they know, without taking the time to learn about the issues.
At least FSF isn't evil. They give me the code, which is usually much more than I ask for.
> The big idea of GPL:
> Call your software "free" so stupid commercial developers will re-use your code in closed-source products. Then Richard's lawyers give you a nice call, "GPL your product or hand over the cash".
The big idea of the GPL is to ensure that all licensees have the right to practise four specific liberties. These four liberties are necessary for a user to live in freedom. A user cannot live in freedom if this user is lacking sufficient authority to practise all of them. We call software licensed under the GPL “Free Software” because every licensee to that software is allowed to live in freedom.
There is nothing wrong with integrating GPL'd code into a closed source proprietary computer program. There is nothing wrong with integrating GPL'd code into a free commercial computer program. The problem occurs when someone subjugates a licensee into the trap of proprietary software using the code of a GPL'd program.
Whenever you choose to convey a copy of a GPL'd program, nothing in the GPL obliges you to license your work under the GPL. However, it does require that you grant your licensees the same rights that was granted to you. The easiest way to do this is to license your program under the GPL.
> Then you badmouth people using the MIT/BSD licenses for being "less free" as they are not viral (which means that you can include BSD-licensed code in a commercial product).
I personally would not bad mouth anybody for doing this, though I have experienced others doing it. I do what I can to let them know that they shouldn't do this. You seem to be confused about Free Software; everybody is allowed to use Free Software as part of a commercial product. Software that does not allow usage as part of a commercial product is proprietary software.
> RMS loves to play with words to deceive. For example he tells you to modify the meaning of the acronyms used by your opponents (without specifying that you changed the meaning). http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html
Ok, so give me a specific example of an acronym that was changed that was intended to deceive.
> Most nerds may be sympathetic to many of his goals, but his frequent dick moves such as this example means that he is a major douche.
I don't understand the meaning of dick move. I don't understand the meaning of major douche.
> people who use the GPL without specifying a version rarely realize that their project are pawns at the mercy of the evolving agenda of the FSF.
How does applying the GPL to a program without a specifying a version become “pawns at the mercy of the evolving agenda of the FSF”?
Did you know that the agenda of the FSF is exactly the same in spirit today as it was when it formed 20 years ago? If you didn't know that, I would question whether you even understand what is the agenda of the FSF.
> Ok, so give me a specific example of an acronym that was changed that was intended to deceive.
Rms asks you to always define DRM as something like "Digital Restrictions Malware" because he think the original meaning is "propaganda". He did the same thing for TCPA.
And in the same page, rms recommends that you call copyright infringement "sharing information with your neighbor". lol double standards.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html
Also, just see how you redefine freedom to suit your own needs.
> everybody is allowed to use Free Software as part of a commercial product
And you conveniently forget to mention that linking to a GPL'd library means that you must open-source the whole thing. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html
> I don't understand the meaning of dick move. I don't understand the meaning of major douche.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dick+move
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=douche
Enjoy
> How does applying the GPL to a program without a specifying a version become “pawns at the mercy of the evolving agenda of the FSF”?
This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
> exactly the same in spirit
So what? There's zero guarantee. A huge time-bomb that is unlikely to explode because it didn't for 20 years? How fucking great.
> Rms asks you to always define DRM as something like "Digital Restrictions Malware" because he think the original meaning is "propaganda". He did the same thing for TCPA. And in the same page, rms recommends that you call copyright infringement "sharing information with your neighbor". lol double standards.
RMS explains the reasons why he labels these things in this manner. So why is it intended to mislead? Double standards? If RMS has established two (or more) standards, what are they?
> Also, just see how you redefine freedom to suit your own needs.
Where have I done this?
> And you conveniently forget to mention that linking to a GPL'd library means that you must open-source the whole thing.
Wrong. Open source is irrelevant here. Nothing obliges you to cooperate with a community as required by open source.
> This program [...] or (at your option) any later version.
You have quoted one part of the "How to Apply .." section of the GPL3. Tell me how this section causes this sort of program to come under the control of the FSF.
You are not replying to what I'm saying, and you're probably doing it on purpose. Read my reply in the context of the whole thread, I won't waste time reformulating the points that have been already made.
>>19
You have made claims without further qualifying it. You quote examples without explaining how it is revelant. I am asking you to qualify it further. I am asking you to explain why these examples support your assertions.
> "Digital Restrictions Malware"
RMS explains why DRM is malware; RMS explains why DRM is restrictive. The same thing applies for "Treacherous Computing". He explains why TCPA is treacherous to user freedom (PROTIP: It is designed to obey the TCPA master and not the owner of the machine). RMS explains the reasons for using the language he does. So I am questioning why you say that the terms he uses are intended to be misleading.
> Also, just see how you redefine freedom to suit your own needs.
When I say society should have the right to live in freedom, what sort of freedom am I talking about? The freedom that I am talking about allows me to help myself. The freedom that I am talking about allows me to share with my community. How can I be a free citizen if I am not allowed to help myself? How can I be a free citizen if I am not allowed to cooperate with my community?
So please, explain why your examples support your claims.
DRM means "Digital rights management" and TCPA means "Trusted Computer Platform Alliance". Whether you think these terms are honest is absolutely irrelevant: you have just shown how the FSF is willing to opnely lie to deceive. Two wrongs don't make a right. There's nothing to add.
Hey I have an idea let's make baseless assumptions about people. It's pretty obvious you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.
>>21
If I have understood you correctly, would you label me a "liar intending to deceive" if I redefine the acronym U.S.A. - United States of America to be U.S.A. - meaning Union of Spiteful Aggressors despite the fact that my acronym is reasonably accurate?
Please correct me if I am wrong as I am not completely certain about what you are saying.
RMS dropped quite a few time the expression "Digital restrictions management" in articles aimed at non-technical people without letting them know that he changed the meaning of the acronym DRM that they are likely to have heard without knowing its meaning. It's outright deception.
His being an asshole is hurting the cause for more sensible and well-spoken advocates.
Companies promote "Digital Rights Management" as a way to give the consumer a better experience or more features. Most materials make it sound like it's all about giving the consumer more rights, and not taking them away.
By rejecting their definition and substituting a more useful and meaningful one, he's fighting deception, not producing it.
You see, consumers already have the right to use content on whatever hardware or media they like. This has long been established by the courts and content-owners have already failed to make laws restricting it outright. DRM does nothing but allow content-owners to restrict that right, and it does it by skirting the legal landscape, and by tricking the consumer into believing they don't actually have any rights.
What sensible and well-spoken advocate are you thinking of?
ESR tends to be much better mentally balanced.
Sadly, I sometimes agree...
>>28
Friendly reminder that ESR is a pro-war on terror anarchist.
>>27
Changing the meaning of an acronym that your readers do not know, without telling them, is intellectually dishonest and deceptive. The context is completely irrelevant.
Chosing words that sound like they mean something other than what they are is intellectually dishonest; Telling customers that they need DRM in order to get features they want is deceptive.
RMS tells people why he rejects the term "Digital rights management", and so fails your test at deceptiveness:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#DigitalRightsManagement
Two wrongs do not make a right. Christ, are we at that level of argument here? At least try to show some independent thought and not just repeat dogma!
>>36
Not at all, I think going on about this nonsense is a waste of time. I only really looked at the last five posts, to be honest.
So, is there an alternative license that likewise ensures those who would modify your software are required to release the source code freely and publicly under the same license, without being deceptively worded or beholden to suspicious organizations like the FSF? Creative Commons, perhaps?
I get the impression that anti-GPL anonymous' objections are to the methodology of the GPL and its proponents, not the philosophy of the license itself. So a similar copyleft license with more clarity and less political agenda would seem to solve the problem.
>>38
copyleft isn't really that great. there's a reason the BSD and MIT licenses exist. not everyone believes that telling people that they can't do something with the data on their hard drive is right.
>>39
Yet anyone can take that BSD/MIT licensed software, modify it, and slap a EULA on their version which is far more restrictive than any copyleft license. It may satisfy the idea that "telling people that they can't do something with the data on their hard drive isn't right" in the short term, but once somebody creates a derivative work, that all goes out the window.
>>39
The GPL does not tell people that they are not allowed to do something on their hard drive.
>>40
but that EULA doesn't affect the code i already have.
allowing people to give up rights that they choose is a lot better than forcing them to give up ones that you choose.
>>43
I fail to understand you. We really need to learn Lojban.
>>42
the GPL says that i can't allow anyone to obtain a copy of a binary on my hard drive unless i also allow them to obtain the source for that binary. which means that if i don't have the source the GPL requires me to either download it and use up a ridiculous amount of hard drive space to store it, or make sure no one else can read any binaries of GPLed software on my computer.
> Also, I don't understand what you mean by wanting a licence that has more clarity than the GNU GPL. I can assure you that it is a clear licence.
the GPL says a lot more than just what you can and cannot do with software licensed under it. The entire "Preamble" is unnecessary and most of it is deceptive.
> The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed
> to take away your freedom to share and change the works. By contrast,
> the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to
> share and change all versions of a program--to make sure it remains free
> software for all its users.
so if i have a binary of a GPLed program but don't have the source and i modify the binary using a hex editor, am i allowed to distribute the modified binary without the source?
> Would you to expand on the suspicious character of the Free Software Foundation; I don't understand why they are suspicious.
> Also, I don't understand what you mean by wanting a licence that has more clarity than the GNU GPL.
Me neither, but apparently >>8,11,13,17,26,31 do. I was hoping they could suggest another copyleft license that they prefer to the GPL.
> another copyleft license
people who like copyleft licenses usually don't like clear licenses. they like long, complex licenses full of legal doublespeak so they can claim it's "free" and have people just believe them because it takes too long to figure out what the license actually says.
>>48
you do realize that no one actually uses creative commons licenses for code, don't you?
> i don't have the source the GPL requires me to either download it
So get the source code and fulfill your obligations.
> and use up a ridiculous amount of hard drive space to store it
I sincerely doubt that you're strapped for storage space. Storage space is affordable to anybody in 2008.
> or make sure no one else can read any binaries of GPLed software on my computer.
I don't understand this. Are you implying that you are distributing a program whenever someone will connect to your machine through a computer network? Are you implying that whenever a visitor goes to your computer that you are obligated to give them a copy of any GPL program that they execute?
> The entire "Preamble" is unnecessary
I agree. It is not necessary but the FSF wanted it in there.
> and most of it is deceptive.
Please explain further
> so if i have a binary of a GPLed program [...]
That's actually a good question. I need some time (about one week) to think about that one. My initial interpretation is that you would have to provide the original's source with your hex edited binary.
> people who like copyleft licenses usually don't like clear licenses. they like long, complex licenses full of legal doublespeak so they can claim it's "free" and have people just believe them
Non-sequitur. How can you say that people that like copyleft licenses because it is long and complex? These people like complex licences in order to claim the licence is free? This is a faulty argument.
> because it takes too long to figure out what the license actually says.
PROTIP: Go get some legal counselling whenever you need help interpreting legal documents.
> the GPL says that i can't allow anyone to obtain a copy of a binary on my hard drive unless i also allow them to obtain the source for that binary. which means that if i don't have the source the GPL requires me to either download it and use up a ridiculous amount of hard drive space to store it, or make sure no one else can read any binaries of GPLed software on my computer.
Please, reread the GPL. At least for v2 it says the following:
> For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code.
> You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
> c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
> I sincerely doubt that you're strapped for storage space. Storage space is affordable to anybody in 2008.
yeah, it's affordable to anyone who doesn't have to buy gas. or food.
> I don't understand this. Are you implying that you are distributing a program whenever someone will connect to your machine through a computer network? Are you implying that whenever a visitor goes to your computer that you are obligated to give them a copy of any GPL program that they execute?
any time someone uses ssh to connect to my server, they have access to quite a few binaries. sure, i chould chmod them all to 511 or something like that, but that's really a pain in the ass to do.
> You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code.
so if the person you got the source code from dies, you are responsible for making sure that people can still get the source code.
> c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
so you can't just download the source, compile it, install the binary, and then delete the source if you plan on letting anyone else ssh into your machine, unless you do the chmod thing like i already mentioned.
> so you can't just download the source, compile it, install the binary, and then delete the source if you plan on letting anyone else ssh into your machine
I don't understand your reasoning there.
GPL is about distribution, not use. This is why GPL apps that pop up screens that require you to accept the licence before using it indicate the authors don't understand the GPL.
Why would you need the source if someone else SSH's onto your machine? Are you distributing a binary?
>>53
if you let someone use ssh to log into your machine and they have read permission on the binary, you're distributing that binary just as much as someone putting the binary on a web site is distributing it.
To clarify, I think >>54 is trying to say that if someone connects to a machine via SCP and downloads a GPLed binary from it, they might cause the owner of that machine to violate the GPL.
Merely running such a binary remotely over SSH wouldn't violate it, though. The binary isn't being distributed, only its output.
I think that's stretching the intent beyond the breaking point.
Providing a person access to a machine doesn't imply that they can copy whatever they want, otherwise most universities would now be sued into the ground by Adobe.
> I think that's stretching the intent beyond the breaking point.
>
> Providing a person access to a machine doesn't imply that they can copy whatever they want, otherwise most universities would now be sued into the ground by Adobe.
that may not be the intent, but what the license actually says is what actually matters. even if the copyright holder chooses not to enforce it, violating the license is illegal.
does placing a file on a publicly accessible web site imply that anyone who wants to can download the file?
> that may not be the intent, but what the license actually says is what actually matters.
Please don't make definite assertions about things you don't know.
Intent matters very much in the legal profession. For crimes it's called mens rea. In tort law it's a lesser issue, but, for example, you can find issues of intent all over the place in contract law.
What you're suggesting is absurd. It fails the "reasonable person" test.
> does placing a file on a publicly accessible web site imply that anyone who wants to can download the file?
Given what I wrote above, what do you think the answer is?
> Intent matters very much in the legal profession. For crimes it's called mens rea. In tort law it's a lesser issue, but, for example, you can find issues of intent all over the place in contract law.
the "legal profession" is a joke. laws mean what they say. licenses mean what they say. if you don't believe in the rule of law, fine, i'll agree that to you it would fail the "reasonable person" test. but to me saying that the license means something other than what it says because what it says doesn't reflect the intent fails the "reasonable person" test.
if the license doesn't reflect the intent, they should fix the license, not just decide later that the license doesn't mean what it says.
> Given what I wrote above, what do you think the answer is?
given what you wrote, i'd say that you'd say the answer is no.
> the "legal profession" is a joke.
The legal profession is a bit of a joke, but since they're the final arbiter of what a licence means, that's besides the point.
> laws mean what they say.
Not really! Surprise!
You'd think what's on the statute is final, right? Not in the common law system, where its meaning can change based on the interpretations used in later judgements and future separate statutes.
> if the license doesn't reflect the intent
So we should make licences and EULAs even more of a bloody bore to read because of whacked-out corner cases thought up by pedants? Few people read them to begin with. Did you read the GPL? Really? Really, really?
> i'd say that you'd say the answer is no
Actually, it depends.
If I put it on the main page with big blinking download now!, a judge will probably laugh me out of court if I bring a suit against someone who took me up on it.
You are confused about the nature and custom of software distribution; confused about the nature of SSH; and confused about the meaning and intent of the GNU General Public License version 2.
In post >>52, you have implied that you have distributed a computer program when you allow a person to access your computer system through a computer network using SSH. You have implied that allowing this to happen will subject you to the requirements of the GPL.
Firstly, you are wrong about your idea of software distribution and SSH. Granting 'someone' SSH access to your system does not "automatically grant 'someone' the right to obtain a copy of any GPL computer program in your system". If 'someone' did download a GPL program without your authority while accessing your system, then 'someone' would be infringing copyright law.
Secondly, you are wrong in your interpretation of the GPL. In >>52, you have quoted Section 3, Paragraph C of GPLv2. Paragraph C only applies to you when all of the following three events occur:
In conclusion, you are confused about the GPL and software distribution. I want you to find some legal professionals to help you interpret the GNU GPLs before you misinform others of your current (mis)understanding of the GPLv2.
ITT people who don't know what they are talking about accuse other people of being too dumb to understand their points.
Marcus Rex, CTO at the Linux Foundation, sought to assuage those fears...
"The current license for Linux requires you give back any changes you make to the open source community, but there's no way anyone can require those assurances and there's no way we'd know,"
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/061208-linux-wall-street.html?hpg1=bn
>>65
What do you want to discuss? Linux is licensed under the GNU GPLv2. Nothing in any of the GNU GPLs require anybody to "give back any changes to the open source community under certain circumstances". By using this language, Marcus Rex shows that he is confused about the requirements of the GPLv2.
The GPLv2 is a distribution licence and so, it doesn't do anything if you use the GPL program in private use. The only time it comes into effect is when you intend to distribute a modified or unmodified copy of the GPL program.
http://www.gnu.org/cgi-bin/license-quiz.cgi for the actual party line on those issues.