occupygpl.org wants to make copyleft licenses go away
- Anmelden oder Registrieren um Kommentare zu schreiben
Just saw this on the /freesoftware Reddit. Not sure if a joke or not.
Why care about people who don't understand a thing or don't want to understand?
i could just as well read the google company manifesto or something like that...
Just because you're not allowed to use code by some developer and close it up doesn't mean that this developer has suddenly power over you / is controlling your life.
Hence your freedom has *not* been taken away, period.
It just means that this piece of software won't help you to gain unethical control over other people.
And please don't downvote t3g's post just because you disagree with his link.
The voting feature is not supposed to be used like that.
Thanks. I wanted to start a conversation on here just in case you may or may have missed this information earlier.
Hm. Let's all take a quick look at the https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/x.html (X Window System Trap.)
This "Occupy GPL" thing pretty much goes by the "Let's save the village by burning it" strategy...
This website does not deserve any attention. Moreover, the fact that it tries to compare itself to Occupy Wall Street is insulting. It's rather more like the Tea Party.
I've heard an anecdote suggesting that companies find it funny that they can take permissively licensed software, use it to enhance their proprietary software, and give nothing back. I don't know whether or not this is true, but even if it isn't, it's exactly the sort of thing permissive licenses invite. All this crap about copyleft being some sort of injustice because corporations don't have the "freedom" to take away the freedom of their users? It strikes me the same as when the ultra-rich complain about not having "freedom" to exploit workers, the environment, the economy, etc to make themselves even richer.
If I were a developer I would prefer a copy-left license, that way I can sell exceptions and at least get paid if I'm going to help non-free software development.
The problem with Copyleft is that it encourages things like FreeBSD vs. Mac
OSX. The only reason OSX works out of the box and FreeBSD is no better for
it, is that Apple keeps the useful bits to themselves. It defeats the
opensource purpose.
On Wed Feb 11 2015 at 6:04:48 PM <name at domain> wrote:
> If I were a developer would prefer a copy-left license, this way I can sell
> exceptions and at least get paid if I'm going to help non-free software
> development.
>
Um, you're talking about permissive licensing. Copyleft would require Apple to release the useful bits, permissive would not require Apple to.
Permissive licenses are closer to open source thinking, neither cares too much about freedom.
I have a feeling Microsoft is going to do the same thing with the .NET Foundation where they release some of the source code in the spirit of loving open source, but their important code to make it all work as a complete package is hidden. That way, a "community" can improve their code for them and in return, they take that code and make their non-free software better.
At the same time, Microsoft is praised for being open and progressive for embracing open source and loving Linux but their ulterior motives are to lock developers into the C# ecosystem on Linux like they do with Windows and be reliant on their non-free tools.
I have no need to use C# as I find Python a gorgeous language that is stable and has the backing of a non-profit.
The .net Microsoft recently released isn't even open-source by the OSI's standards. It's not permissive, it's not copyleft, it's bs.
Microsoft is releasing the code under the MIT license, which is about as permissive as it gets. Some examples:
https://github.com/dotnet/core/blob/master/LICENSE
https://github.com/dotnet/corefx/blob/master/LICENSE
And this one is Apache 2.0:
https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/blob/master/License.txt
They're releasing it under the MIT license? I must've read a bad article or something. Sorry about that!
I agree with everything except python being a stable language.
No matter which python program i ever used on no matter what system, it was always slow, buggy and crashed in the end.
Maybe it's because there are more hobby-python programs out there? I don't know.
As a programming language, i don't like how it's so distant to the actual things going on, like memory management and stuff.
I like C++ a lot more, even if it's more difficult to learn.
If a Python program suddenly ends, that's because an exception was raised. It's not a problem with the Python interpreter, just a bug in the program (and a lot easier to solve than a segfault, since you have a proper error message).
You're wrong to generalize that all Python programs are excessively buggy; take a closer look at your system, there are probably more Python programs you use every day than you realize. Just try "aptitude -s remove python2.7", for example. All of those programs that would be removed along with Python 2.7 are at least partially written in Python (and probably some of them are entirely written in Python).
You're full of it. Python as a language and CPython as the interpreter are very stable.
C# and Python are probably very different languages (one is medium-level, one is high-level).
On a slightly positive note about the site (credit where it's due, they say?), it looks way better than FSF's in my opinion!
Free Software permits people to do what ever they want with their software right?
yes
it gives power to everyone and not one person or one company
the GPL is simply put
your free to do whatever you want with this program but on condition you do the same for everyone else
that’s what copyleft is it makes sure its always free/libre
Not necessarily. Copyleft licensed software places restrictions on the user, but the placed restrictions prevent the user's liberties from being lost in distributed derivatives.
Using copylefted software doesn't require doing anything, only distributing it, and in some cases, modifying it.
From the narrow perspective of using = running, agreed.
I am a member!
That is usually how someone "uses" a program, yes. I'm aware that people sometimes broaden "use" to mean distributing or incorporating something into another program, but from a legal perspective, a user is someone who runs a program. In this manner, free software licenses do not restrict use in the slightest (and they cannot, or else they do not meet the Free Software Definition). Copyleft only kicks in when the program is distributed, which is something else entirely.
The legal perspective is good to know. I personally would consider any person distributing Trisquel for any purpose to be using the software(to raise awareness for example), which is why I wrote user.
I am a translator!
i'm sure it is a joke
Strange, now that webpage redirects to Github's choosealicense.com.
Makes you wonder if it was created by a GitHub employee or now just redirects for a joke. The layout of the site did look like they put some effort into it though.
Yeah I was too late, it has been doing that for a day now.
Sorry, but this article should had been post-it in the TROLL HOLE and not in the main forum of Trisquel.
I disagree
If you were late, Archive.org has a copy of the old page.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150210203941/http://www.occupygpl.org/
Did you go insane?
On Sun Feb 15 2015 at 10:34:48 AM <name at domain> wrote:
> The GPL is not a free license. It does not grant freedom, it grants
> different
> restrictions.
> The GPL is not a free license. It does not grant freedom, it grants
> different
> restrictions.
> The GPL is not a free license. It does not grant freedom, it grants
> different
> restrictions.
> The GPL is not a free license. It does not grant freedom, it grants
> different
> restrictions.
> The GPL is not a free license. It does not grant freedom, it grants
> different
> restrictions.
>
is this trolling or is this your opinion?
if it is
can you not see that by stopping developers harming
people’s freedom
everyone is free and that they must respect others
freedom to keep it this way
- Anmelden oder Registrieren um Kommentare zu schreiben