Rant on BSD vs GPL was [Good ol' BSD vs. GPL]
Let me make a rant on BSD vs GPL licenses. It is well known fact that Micro$oft used *BSD TCP stack in earlier versions of their shit. In addition on _old_ versions of windows, grepping for "Berkeley" returned the bsd license in userland, likely in the shit called "ftp.exe". I am not a coder, though have released some non-destructive stuff. If I were a coder, I would have been pissed off if micro$oft profited from my codeZ$ (though a lot a of sheeple don't care about this). If I were a coder, GPL is assumed to guarantee me that shit like m$ can't profit from codeZ$. As an aside, appears to me because of GCC (C compliler) BSD exists in its current form. It it still fun trolling *BSD fanatics "Dudes, you still using GPL GCC?")). Haskell language shit depending on GCC and claiming they "compile with portable assembler" don't make sense to me too, fuck Haskelli and its monads, sorry. cheers, -- j
On 01/06/15 19:51 +0200, Georgi Guninski wrote:
Let me make a rant on BSD vs GPL licenses.
It is well known fact that Micro$oft used *BSD TCP stack in earlier versions of their shit. In addition on _old_ versions of windows, grepping for "Berkeley" returned the bsd license in userland, likely in the shit called "ftp.exe".
I am not a coder, though have released some non-destructive stuff.
If I were a coder, I would have been pissed off if micro$oft profited from my codeZ$ (though a lot a of sheeple don't care about this).
My googlefu is failing me, but I recall that Microsoft came to some sort of agreement back in the 90s with the Regents of the University of California, meaning someone got payed.
If I were a coder, GPL is assumed to guarantee me that shit like m$ can't profit from codeZ$.
https://www.google.com/search?q=microsoft+making+money+from+linux -- Dan White vi, debian, C, mutt, sysvinit, /usr/local/, su -, and I dress to the right
On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 01:21:22PM -0600, Dan White wrote:
On 01/06/15 19:51 +0200, Georgi Guninski wrote:
Let me make a rant on BSD vs GPL licenses.
It is well known fact that Micro$oft used *BSD TCP stack in earlier versions of their shit. In addition on _old_ versions of windows, grepping for "Berkeley" returned the bsd license in userland, likely in the shit called "ftp.exe".
I am not a coder, though have released some non-destructive stuff.
If I were a coder, I would have been pissed off if micro$oft profited from my codeZ$ (though a lot a of sheeple don't care about this).
My googlefu is failing me, but I recall that Microsoft came to some sort of agreement back in the 90s with the Regents of the University of California, meaning someone got payed.
I haven't heard of this, though it might be true. They could have done it legally without paying and BSD license in their code suggests they might have not paid enough (if any). Reference: http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/2004/06/25/108820958560677845/ BSD Licensed Code in Windows Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
If I were a coder, GPL is assumed to guarantee me that shit like m$ can't profit from codeZ$.
https://www.google.com/search?q=microsoft+making+money+from+linux
I agree that m$ profits from linux, but this requires more legal tricks/sophistication than just legally taking the BSD code. (My guess is they profit mainly from patents, but this is another story).
-- Dan White vi, debian, C, mutt, sysvinit, /usr/local/, su -, and I dress to the right
Short answer: Yes, they patent-troll large companies using Linux, and many of them roll over rather than get sued into oblivion. Patents and profiting from patents is an unrelated discussion to copyright-based licensing. Of course, GPL licenses contain clauses that actually battle software patents, whereas more "permissive" licenses do not. So, for example, a company shipping GPL'd code makes a covenant in so doing not to sue others for patents under some set of broad conditions. Microsoft used BSD code way back and was still able to sue the FLOSS community regularly, but since buying Nokia, who then shipped an Android phone (linux, GPLv2), apparently their basis for doing so in future is somewhat undermined. This is why GPL matters, why it's valuable. A permissively licensed code commons is great if we're all great people who write and share great things. But there are plenty of people out there willing to Embrace Extend Extinguish, which GPL protects against (patent clauses and copyleft) and BSD does not. On 07/01/15 08:52, Georgi Guninski wrote:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 01:21:22PM -0600, Dan White wrote:
On 01/06/15 19:51 +0200, Georgi Guninski wrote:
Let me make a rant on BSD vs GPL licenses.
It is well known fact that Micro$oft used *BSD TCP stack in earlier versions of their shit. In addition on _old_ versions of windows, grepping for "Berkeley" returned the bsd license in userland, likely in the shit called "ftp.exe".
I am not a coder, though have released some non-destructive stuff.
If I were a coder, I would have been pissed off if micro$oft profited from my codeZ$ (though a lot a of sheeple don't care about this).
My googlefu is failing me, but I recall that Microsoft came to some sort of agreement back in the 90s with the Regents of the University of California, meaning someone got payed.
I haven't heard of this, though it might be true. They could have done it legally without paying and BSD license in their code suggests they might have not paid enough (if any). Reference: http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/2004/06/25/108820958560677845/ BSD Licensed Code in Windows Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
If I were a coder, GPL is assumed to guarantee me that shit like m$ can't profit from codeZ$.
https://www.google.com/search?q=microsoft+making+money+from+linux
I agree that m$ profits from linux, but this requires more legal tricks/sophistication than just legally taking the BSD code. (My guess is they profit mainly from patents, but this is another story).
-- Dan White vi, debian, C, mutt, sysvinit, /usr/local/, su -, and I dress to the right
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 4:48 AM, Cathal Garvey <cathalgarvey@cathalgarvey.me> wrote:
Patents and profiting from patents is an unrelated discussion to copyright-based licensing.
Patents came about a bit before copyright. Today patents talk about licensing, and copyright talks about patent. They're not exactly inseparable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent
But there are plenty of people out there willing to Embrace Extend Extinguish, which GPL protects against (patent clauses and copyleft) and BSD does not.
You cannot extinguish BSD software. You may close your copy. However the original branch unaffected by that. Nor can you patent your copy of BSD code, the code itself exists as prior art. Copyleft or not is of no concern to actual extinguishment. Patenting your subsequent mods to code may yes block others from moving in that same direction. That's really a question of patent reform, not license. Restricting patents in license like GPL is interesting and useful (presuming tested as enforceable) if you're worried about direction. Don't mistake patent restrictions as freedom though. As Juan may tell you, both patents and license are bullshit, at least to some people.
You cannot extinguish BSD software. You may close your copy. However the original branch unaffected by that. Nor can you patent your copy of BSD code, the code itself exists as prior art.
Embrace/Extend/Extinguish works by taking a codebase that can be improved (all codebases can be), making those improvements, and patenting the *improvements*. You can often successfully patent the original work, too, because the patent system is trash and open developers rarely have the resources to fight you. The original code remains open ("Yay!"), but now the open developers are not technically entitled according to patent law to make the obvious improvements they were probably planning to make, because they've been patented by an extinguisher (whether MS, Apple, Yahoo, Google, FB, or merely the competitor-next-door). Don't tell me that the obviousness of the obvious-next-steps will prevent patenting, because that's hogwash. This is the reality, it's what happens out there in the world. The GPL acknowledges this by forbidding suits within the scope of the work (I think: GPL experts on-list?), preventing E3 from occurring. Other licenses often take steps in this direction, but the ultra-short "friendly and permissive" licenses usually don't, or do so in such a terse and legally unenforceable way that they might as well not be.
Don't mistake patent restrictions as freedom though.
Freedoms can be implicitly restricted merely by the act of withholding essential things. Food, water can be restricted by "private ownership" of a well to the degree that others in an area starve to death or subjugate themselves to slavery: this is "freedom" to own something exclusively becoming the instrument of enslaving others. In a less dramatic but still important way, the "freedom" to proprietise a code-base can starve others of their freedoms by withholding what they need to exercise them, and potentially making them "slaves" to the code that has all the obvious improvements while forbidding free alternatives (patents). So, patent restrictions are freedom; they prevent the limitation of others' freedoms (being attacked with patents) by restricting the freedom of the licensor/licensee (to create or enforce patents). Preserving the rights of the few to patent and attack others opens the door to the abrogation of others' rights. Where, in this case, "others" can include the original developers whose work is co-opted, patent-encumbered, and proprietised. Freedom is not merely defined in law but in experience, and simply removing explicit limitations on freedom (copyleft licenses) does not mean that the total freedom in the world has increased. On 07/01/15 11:04, grarpamp wrote:
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 4:48 AM, Cathal Garvey <cathalgarvey@cathalgarvey.me> wrote:
Patents and profiting from patents is an unrelated discussion to copyright-based licensing.
Patents came about a bit before copyright. Today patents talk about licensing, and copyright talks about patent. They're not exactly inseparable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent
But there are plenty of people out there willing to Embrace Extend Extinguish, which GPL protects against (patent clauses and copyleft) and BSD does not.
You cannot extinguish BSD software. You may close your copy. However the original branch unaffected by that. Nor can you patent your copy of BSD code, the code itself exists as prior art. Copyleft or not is of no concern to actual extinguishment. Patenting your subsequent mods to code may yes block others from moving in that same direction. That's really a question of patent reform, not license. Restricting patents in license like GPL is interesting and useful (presuming tested as enforceable) if you're worried about direction. Don't mistake patent restrictions as freedom though.
As Juan may tell you, both patents and license are bullshit, at least to some people.
On Wed, 2015-01-07 at 11:33 +0000, Cathal Garvey wrote:
The GPL acknowledges this by forbidding suits within the scope of the work (I think: GPL experts on-list?), preventing E3 from occurring. Other licenses often take steps in this direction, but the ultra-short "friendly and permissive" licenses usually don't, or do so in such a terse and legally unenforceable way that they might as well not be.
IANAL. TINLA. The GPLv3+ contains this sort of patent protection, as does I believe the Apache license in later versions.
Freedom is not merely defined in law but in experience, and simply removing explicit limitations on freedom (copyleft licenses) does not mean that the total freedom in the world has increased.
BSD advocates, I think, are not interested in total freedom in the world. This is a CONSEQUENCE or OUTCOME of a choice, not the choice itself. I find frequently that the dispute between BSD and GPL advocates usually boils down to consequentialist morals on the GPL side, and deontological or rule-based morals on the BSD side. While a BSD advocate believes it is immoral to restrict action in any way, regardless of consequence, a GPL advocate believes it is irrelevant what actions are restricted or allowed, but rather that the vital fact is the total freedom in the world, or the consequence of whatever actions take place.
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Ted Smith <tedks@riseup.net> wrote:
On Wed, 2015-01-07 at 11:33 +0000, Cathal Garvey wrote:
The GPL acknowledges this by forbidding suits within the scope of the work (I think: GPL experts on-list?), preventing E3 from occurring. Other licenses often take steps in this direction, but the ultra-short "friendly and permissive" licenses usually don't
Probably because their model and vision is different, they're not really out to modify the world beyond saying "here you go, it's free", only out to modify the code, so they've little interest in legal longtexts or lawyers.
terse and legally unenforceable way that they might as well not be.
The GPLv3+ contains this sort of patent protection
Section 10, last paragraph, last part. Don't know if that has been tested in court as other parts have been in the news. And all of paragraph 11, which grants patents. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
Freedom is not merely defined in law but in experience, and simply removing explicit limitations on freedom (copyleft licenses) does not mean that the total freedom in the world has increased.
BSD advocates, I think, are not interested in total freedom in the world. This is a CONSEQUENCE or OUTCOME of a choice, not the choice itself.
boils down to consequentialist morals on the GPL side, and deontological or rule-based morals on the BSD side.
Yes, depends on definition of freedom. Unfortunately GPL and BSD people seem define that differently.
I don't think it's unfortunate, I think it's complementary. GPL is valuable for trailblazing and stamping.out new territory because it prevents E3, BSD is valuable because it helps shitty tech companies migrate to standards that aren't total snakeoil. Between the two, the world improves. Obviously I think GPL is better and more important, but that doesn't mean I disparage or undervalue other open work. On 8 January 2015 09:26:15 GMT+00:00, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 2015-01-07 at 11:33 +0000, Cathal Garvey wrote:
The GPL acknowledges this by forbidding suits within the scope of
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Ted Smith <tedks@riseup.net> wrote: the
work (I think: GPL experts on-list?), preventing E3 from occurring. Other licenses often take steps in this direction, but the ultra-short "friendly and permissive" licenses usually don't
Probably because their model and vision is different, they're not really out to modify the world beyond saying "here you go, it's free", only out to modify the code, so they've little interest in legal longtexts or lawyers.
terse and legally unenforceable way that they might as well not be.
The GPLv3+ contains this sort of patent protection
Section 10, last paragraph, last part. Don't know if that has been tested in court as other parts have been in the news. And all of paragraph 11, which grants patents.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
Freedom is not merely defined in law but in experience, and simply removing explicit limitations on freedom (copyleft licenses) does not mean that the total freedom in the world has increased.
BSD advocates, I think, are not interested in total freedom in the world. This is a CONSEQUENCE or OUTCOME of a choice, not the choice itself.
boils down to consequentialist morals on the GPL side, and deontological or rule-based morals on the BSD side.
Yes, depends on definition of freedom. Unfortunately GPL and BSD people seem define that differently.
-- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Dnia środa, 7 stycznia 2015 06:04:15 grarpamp pisze:
As Juan may tell you, both patents and license are bullshit, at least to some people.
They are. On the other hand, we have to operate in the world where they sadly exist. Why not use them to our own advantage? This is what hackers do, they take a system and subvert its operation so it works the way they want it to work. Copyleft is a nice hack on the existing copyright system. Which is not to say the system does not require reform. It deeply, deeply does. -- Pozdrawiam, Michał "rysiek" Woźniak Zmieniam klucz GPG :: http://rys.io/pl/147 GPG Key Transition :: http://rys.io/en/147
2015-01-06 18:51 GMT+01:00 Georgi Guninski <guninski@guninski.com>:
Haskell language shit depending on GCC and claiming they "compile with portable assembler" don't make sense to me too, fuck Haskelli and its monads, sorry.
Not really sure how this factors into it. There's more than one Haskell compiler, you know? Haskell and monads are languages, and do not depend upon compilation to have meaning. Monads are like, kinda inevitable. You have them in your code, you just don't know. As for the rest, GPL when something is everyone's property, BSD when you're actually just a company pushing a product or just don't care. There's not much between GPL and BSD. I'd like a structure where you have to pay to get in, but once you're in it's like GPL (but only with others who are "in"), instead of every closed source license out there. Meanwhile we must not depend upon the bullshit copyright system to provide us with compensation. Distribution is no longer a challenge and no profit can be extracted from it anymore. Stop it already. Please stop ruining reality to create artificial scarcity, I want it not.
Georgi write: Dudes, you still using GPL GCC?
Actually, no. https://bitrig.org/10.html http://wiki.netbsd.org/tutorials/pkgsrc/clang/ https://wiki.freebsd.org/BuildingFreeBSDWithClang http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/49906/why-is-freebsd-deprecating-gcc... http://www.dragonflydigest.com/2014/10/22/14942.html http://www.dragonflybsd.org/docs/developer/clang/ http://www.thejemreport.com/more-on-openbsds-new-compiler/ http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20091228231142 http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=137530560232232&w=2 http://clang.debian.net/ http://llvm.linuxfoundation.org/ https://wiki.debian.org/Debian_GNU/kFreeBSD http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gentoo-alt/bsd/fbsd/ On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 3:45 PM, Lodewijk andré de la porte <l@odewijk.nl> wrote:
GPL when something is everyone's property,
Unless you're not "in", then suddenly they get ugly like you broke their communal bong hit or something. They used to cry if you didn't pass the code around, now they sic their lawyers on you. That's not very free.
BSD when you ... just don't care.
Exactly, everyone is in, do whatever you want. And it's almost as unlimited as you can get under today's mandatory law for those who say copyright is fiction. These days BSD says basically two things: 1) Do what you want. 2) Author disclaims liability. It's hard to be more free than that under current law, yet... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL
On 1/7/15, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 3:45 PM, Lodewijk andré de la porte <l@odewijk.nl> wrote:
GPL when something is everyone's property,
Unless you're not "in", then suddenly they get ugly like you broke their communal bong hit or something. They used to cry if you didn't pass the code around, now they sic their lawyers on you. That's not very free.
Dang proprietary companies - we used to copy Win311 and later 98 and XP around at the computer club like it was 1999, then Microsoft and Adobe got all "man, you broke our communal bong hit" and now they sic their lawyers on you. And we're talking XP with the BSD TCP/IP stack. That's not very free.
BSD when you ... just don't care.
Exactly, everyone is in, do whatever you want. And it's almost as unlimited as you can get under today's mandatory law for those who say copyright is fiction. These days BSD says basically two things: 1) Do what you want. 2) Author disclaims liability.
It's hard to be more free than that under current law
Man, roses and daisies will save the world - you're just not meditatin' enough man. Love. Peace and love. If there's a revolution, just pray for peace and love, and the daisies will, like, save you man. <coder hippie> This one time, at BSD camp, I like, got some free code! <stallman> Freedoms aint freedoms bro. <love and light hippie> But, like, peace and free love man? BSD is just sooo free, and everyone's just, so, like, free - can't you see? <moglen> Licenses aint licenses dude. <coder hippie> This one time, at BSD camp, I like, used BSD licensed code. <love and light hippie #1> BSD license man, now -that's- free <tokes a hit>... ... yeahhhh man, that's freeeee. <love and light hippie #2> Is it vegetarian? <coder hippie> This one time, at BSD camp, I like, stuck a proprietary license up my code. <stallman> Dude! Stop swearing already!
On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 01:57:25AM -0500, grarpamp wrote:
Georgi write: Dudes, you still using GPL GCC?
Actually, no.
OK, this might have finally happened and I have been trolling bsd fanatics about gcc since at least 4 years (maybe more). Not an expert on compilers, but gcc has some extensions like __gnu*, some of which are widely used. Not sure how clang currently deals with them. Building just the kernel with clang is likely possibly, but bare kernel is not a distro. Till recently, I believe one couldn't build desktop environment only with clang, might be wrong on this. Unrelated: I am wondering why bigcorps like google/linksys use linux, when they could have used *bsd like apple/juniper.
https://bitrig.org/10.html http://wiki.netbsd.org/tutorials/pkgsrc/clang/ https://wiki.freebsd.org/BuildingFreeBSDWithClang http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/49906/why-is-freebsd-deprecating-gcc... http://www.dragonflydigest.com/2014/10/22/14942.html http://www.dragonflybsd.org/docs/developer/clang/ http://www.thejemreport.com/more-on-openbsds-new-compiler/ http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20091228231142 http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=137530560232232&w=2
http://clang.debian.net/ http://llvm.linuxfoundation.org/
https://wiki.debian.org/Debian_GNU/kFreeBSD http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gentoo-alt/bsd/fbsd/
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 3:45 PM, Lodewijk andré de la porte <l@odewijk.nl> wrote:
GPL when something is everyone's property,
Unless you're not "in", then suddenly they get ugly like you broke their communal bong hit or something. They used to cry if you didn't pass the code around, now they sic their lawyers on you. That's not very free.
BSD when you ... just don't care.
Exactly, everyone is in, do whatever you want. And it's almost as unlimited as you can get under today's mandatory law for those who say copyright is fiction. These days BSD says basically two things: 1) Do what you want. 2) Author disclaims liability.
It's hard to be more free than that under current law, yet...
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 6:25 AM, Georgi Guninski <guninski@guninski.com> wrote:
Building just the kernel with clang is likely possibly, but bare kernel is not a distro.
Till recently, I believe one couldn't build desktop environment only with clang, might be wrong on this.
As in the links, the entire FreeBSD kernel, base, and most of it's ~25,000 ports build with clang. X, browsers, whatever. The others are not as far along. Not bad considering clang itself is a "till recently".
On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 07:00:24AM -0500, grarpamp wrote:
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 6:25 AM, Georgi Guninski <guninski@guninski.com> wrote:
Building just the kernel with clang is likely possibly, but bare kernel is not a distro.
Till recently, I believe one couldn't build desktop environment only with clang, might be wrong on this.
As in the links, the entire FreeBSD kernel, base, and most of it's ~25,000 ports build with clang. X, browsers, whatever. The others are not as far along. Not bad considering clang itself is a "till recently".
Thanks, probably i should stop trolling bsd for gcc so far, except for historical reasons that RMS & co gave them the toolchain to get started and be alive. I suppose _some_ of the ~25,000 ports _don't build_ with clang, giving me a short opportunity of trolling -- you still need gcc for _all_ ports?
Dnia środa, 7 stycznia 2015 14:47:14 Georgi Guninski pisze:
On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 07:00:24AM -0500, grarpamp wrote:
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 6:25 AM, Georgi Guninski <guninski@guninski.com> wrote:
Building just the kernel with clang is likely possibly, but bare kernel is not a distro.
Till recently, I believe one couldn't build desktop environment only with clang, might be wrong on this.
As in the links, the entire FreeBSD kernel, base, and most of it's ~25,000 ports build with clang. X, browsers, whatever. The others are not as far along. Not bad considering clang itself is a "till recently".
Thanks, probably i should stop trolling bsd for gcc so far, except for historical reasons that RMS & co gave them the toolchain to get started and be alive.
I suppose _some_ of the ~25,000 ports _don't build_ with clang, giving me a short opportunity of trolling -- you still need gcc for _all_ ports?
Stop fishing for trolling material already! ;) -- Pozdrawiam, Michał "rysiek" Woźniak Zmieniam klucz GPG :: http://rys.io/pl/147 GPG Key Transition :: http://rys.io/en/147
On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 11:52:05PM +0100, rysiek wrote:
Dnia środa, 7 stycznia 2015 14:47:14 Georgi Guninski pisze:
Thanks, probably i should stop trolling bsd for gcc so far, except for historical reasons that RMS & co gave them the toolchain to get started and be alive.
I suppose _some_ of the ~25,000 ports _don't build_ with clang, giving me a short opportunity of trolling -- you still need gcc for _all_ ports?
Stop fishing for trolling material already! ;)
Ok ;) To clarify, I not against neither BSD license nor distributions. Like them for the reason they are competition to GNU/linux (which is not going well IMHO). -- j
On Wed, 7 Jan 2015 01:57:25 -0500 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
Unless you're not "in", then suddenly they get ugly like you broke their communal bong hit or something. They used to cry if you didn't pass the code around, now they sic their lawyers on you. That's not very free.
Stallman isn't exactly a master of political philosophy.... https://stallman.org/articles/why-we-need-a-state.html
Dnia środa, 7 stycznia 2015 15:12:43 Juan pisze:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2015 01:57:25 -0500
grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
Unless you're not "in", then suddenly they get ugly like you broke their communal bong hit or something. They used to cry if you didn't pass the code around, now they sic their lawyers on you. That's not very free.
Stallman isn't exactly a master of political philosophy....
While I admire RMS for his free software work, I have my own differences with him. For example his stance on Creative Commons -ND provision: http://onpon4.github.io/other/fsf-no-derivatives/ http://rys.io/en/101 To be fair, though, he was nice enough to re-license his Doggerel[1] page so that I could publish my translation of one of his songs, so... ;) [1] https://stallman.org/doggerel.html -- Pozdrawiam, Michał "rysiek" Woźniak Zmieniam klucz GPG :: http://rys.io/pl/147 GPG Key Transition :: http://rys.io/en/147
On Fri, 09 Jan 2015 23:56:21 +0100 rysiek <rysiek@hackerspace.pl> wrote:
While I admire RMS for his free software work, I have my own differences with him. For example his stance on Creative Commons -ND provision: http://onpon4.github.io/other/fsf-no-derivatives/ http://rys.io/en/101
I read your critique. Yet another instance of Stallman's lack of consistency. What I found slightly interesting, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that one of Stallman's basic arguments for free software is that individuals have the right to use their hardware however they wish, but running propietary software means that somebody else is controlling or 'owning' their hardware. That is a rather libertarian/propertarian argument.
To be fair, though, he was nice enough to re-license his Doggerel[1] page so that I could publish my translation of one of his songs, so... ;)
Hi there, Dnia piątek, 9 stycznia 2015 21:09:56 Juan pisze:
On Fri, 09 Jan 2015 23:56:21 +0100
rysiek <rysiek@hackerspace.pl> wrote:
While I admire RMS for his free software work, I have my own differences with him. For example his stance on Creative Commons -ND provision: http://onpon4.github.io/other/fsf-no-derivatives/ http://rys.io/en/101
I read your critique.
For the record, the first link is not mine.
Yet another instance of Stallman's lack of consistency.
I find him very consistent as long as we stay in the software ballpark; as soon as we leave it, especially if we venture into other copyrighted works territory, there are things that indeed seem inconsistent. Can't really blame him, I guess; no single person is able to grasp all the intricacies involved. And I'm sure that it would be possible to convince him, after a long and extensive enough discussion. Or maybe he would convince me, who's to say who's right here?
What I found slightly interesting, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that one of Stallman's basic arguments for free software is that individuals have the right to use their hardware however they wish, but running propietary software means that somebody else is controlling or 'owning' their hardware.
I would say: that individuals should have the right to use their *tools* however they like, including fixing them, modifying them and helping their neighbours by lending them.
That is a rather libertarian/propertarian argument.
Well, as far as I read it, it's not about *ownership*, but rather *control*. But I guess to some extent you can't have one without the other. -- Pozdrawiam, Michał "rysiek" Woźniak Zmieniam klucz GPG :: http://rys.io/pl/147 GPG Key Transition :: http://rys.io/en/147
On Sat, 10 Jan 2015 01:45:24 +0100 rysiek <rysiek@hackerspace.pl> wrote:
While I admire RMS for his free software work, I have my own differences with him. For example his stance on Creative Commons -ND provision: http://onpon4.github.io/other/fsf-no-derivatives/ http://rys.io/en/101
Yet another instance of Stallman's lack of consistency.
I find him very consistent as long as we stay in the software ballpark; as soon as we leave it, especially if we venture into other copyrighted works territory, there are things that indeed seem inconsistent.
I wasn't referring to copyright legalese anyway. I was talking about serious stuff like constantly invoking freedom while being a crass statist.
What I found slightly interesting, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that one of Stallman's basic arguments for free software is that individuals have the right to use their hardware however they wish, but running propietary software means that somebody else is controlling or 'owning' their hardware.
I would say: that individuals should have the right to use their *tools* however they like, including fixing them, modifying them and helping their neighbours by lending them.
Which boils down to : this is my stuff - I do with it whatever I want.
That is a rather libertarian/propertarian argument.
Well, as far as I read it, it's not about *ownership*, but rather *control*. But I guess to some extent you can't have one without the other.
Dnia niedziela, 11 stycznia 2015 18:34:24 Juan pisze:
I would say: that individuals should have the right to use their *tools* however they like, including fixing them, modifying them and helping their neighbours by lending them.
Which boils down to : this is my stuff - I do with it whatever I want.
So, if I write a program, whose "stuff" is it? Mine? Yours if you're using it? the "boils down to" is a bit simplified, isn't it. -- Pozdrawiam, Michał "rysiek" Woźniak Zmieniam klucz GPG :: http://rys.io/pl/147 GPG Key Transition :: http://rys.io/en/147
On Sun, 11 Jan 2015 23:09:41 +0100 rysiek <rysiek@hackerspace.pl> wrote:
Dnia niedziela, 11 stycznia 2015 18:34:24 Juan pisze:
I would say: that individuals should have the right to use their *tools* however they like, including fixing them, modifying them and helping their neighbours by lending them.
Which boils down to : this is my stuff - I do with it whatever I want.
So, if I write a program, whose "stuff" is it? Mine? Yours if you're using it? the "boils down to" is a bit simplified, isn't it.
I was referring to physical property - computer hardware in this case. Again, the argument is that since people own the hardware they should control it (otherwise they don't really own it). If you write a program you are the author. You can keep it secret but you can't prevent people from copying it/using it if you somehow make it public. As to who 'owns' it, the question doesn't make much sense because, again, intellectual 'property' doesn't really work liky physical property.
Dnia niedziela, 11 stycznia 2015 19:41:44 Juan pisze:
On Sun, 11 Jan 2015 23:09:41 +0100
rysiek <rysiek@hackerspace.pl> wrote:
Dnia niedziela, 11 stycznia 2015 18:34:24 Juan pisze:
I would say: that individuals should have the right to use their *tools* however they like, including fixing them, modifying them and helping their neighbours by lending them.
Which boils down to : this is my stuff - I do with it
whatever I want.
So, if I write a program, whose "stuff" is it? Mine? Yours if you're using it? the "boils down to" is a bit simplified, isn't it.
I was referring to physical property - computer hardware in this case. Again, the argument is that since people own the hardware they should control it (otherwise they don't really own it).
Hence we agree (and Stallman, too).
If you write a program you are the author. You can keep it secret but you can't prevent people from copying it/using it if you somehow make it public. As to who 'owns' it, the question doesn't make much sense because, again, intellectual 'property' doesn't really work liky physical property.
So again, agreed. :) -- Pozdrawiam, Michał "rysiek" Woźniak Zmieniam klucz GPG :: http://rys.io/pl/147 GPG Key Transition :: http://rys.io/en/147
On Sun, 2015-01-11 at 19:41 -0300, Juan wrote:
As to who 'owns' it, the question doesn't make much sense because, again, intellectual 'property' doesn't really work liky physical property.
More correctly stated: there is really no such thing as "intellectual property" at all. Copyright, trademark, patent, and whatever else really have little to nothing in common with each other, and have very little to nothing in common with property laws. -- Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com>
On Sun, 11 Jan 2015 23:00:38 -0500 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
about serious stuff like constantly invoking freedom while being a crass statist.
It's a trap!
Well if it is trap, it is a poorly designed trap.
On Sun, 11 Jan 2015 23:00:38 -0500 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
about serious stuff like constantly invoking freedom while being a crass statist.
It's a trap!
Ha. Wait! https://stallman.org/articles/why-we-need-a-state.html When I first read it I missed this line "Copyright (c) 2013 Richard Stallman Verbatim copying and redistribution of this entire page are permitted provided this notice is preserved. " LMAO! unintentional self-parody at its best.
On 01/11/2015 10:39 PM, Juan wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jan 2015 23:00:38 -0500 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
about serious stuff like constantly invoking freedom while being a crass statist.
It's a trap!
Ha. Wait!
Stallman opines therein: | Above all, we need a state in order to have democracy, which | is the system by which the many non-rich [aka beta, weak, | clueless, stupid, etc] join together to overcome the power | of the rich [aka alpha, powerful, skilled, smart, etc] and | thus deny them control over society. I agree, but only provisionally, and only if the alphas don't control the state. However, alphas typically do end up controlling the state, and that's the fatal defect. What's needed long term is conversion of betas into gammas. With enough gammas, the state will arguably wither away. But I'll be dead long before then, so I focus on the process.
When I first read it I missed this line
"Copyright (c) 2013 Richard Stallman Verbatim copying and redistribution of this entire page are permitted provided this notice is preserved. "
LMAO! unintentional self-parody at its best.
No, he's just saying that he'll track you down and kick your ass if you fuck with his shit. There's no state required for that ;)
On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 10:07:05 -0700 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
Stallman opines therein:
| Above all, we need a state in order to have democracy, which | is the system by which the many non-rich [aka beta, weak, | clueless, stupid, etc] join together to overcome the power | of the rich [aka alpha, powerful, skilled, smart, etc] and | thus deny them control over society.
I agree, but only provisionally, and only if the alphas don't control the state. However, alphas typically do end up controlling the state, and that's the fatal defect.
Yep. You quoted and refuted (a part of) Stallman's more general theory. What first caught my attention though was that somebody who's allegedly concerned with freedom, is an advocate of, among other things, public education and 'national' 'defense'. Also, all the rest of 'free' socialist programs he favors require high levels of taxation. But of course, robbery is freedom.
What's needed long term is conversion of betas into gammas. With enough gammas, the state will arguably wither away. But I'll be dead long before then, so I focus on the process.
When I first read it I missed this line
"Copyright (c) 2013 Richard Stallman Verbatim copying and redistribution of this entire page are permitted provided this notice is preserved. "
LMAO! unintentional self-parody at its best.
No, he's just saying that he'll track you down and kick your ass if you fuck with his shit. There's no state required for that ;)
Well, the copyright notice looks like a US government copyright notice. But that's not what I was getting at anyway. The thing is, as Rysiek pointed out, Stallman's position doesn't seem fully consistent. And Mirimir, you've just violated Stallman's copyright! It says "verbatim copying" but you added a comment of your own inside Stallman's text. Brace yourself!
On 01/12/2015 12:22 PM, Juan wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 10:07:05 -0700 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
Stallman opines therein:
| Above all, we need a state in order to have democracy, which | is the system by which the many non-rich [aka beta, weak, | clueless, stupid, etc] join together to overcome the power | of the rich [aka alpha, powerful, skilled, smart, etc] and | thus deny them control over society.
I agree, but only provisionally, and only if the alphas don't control the state. However, alphas typically do end up controlling the state, and that's the fatal defect.
Yep.
You quoted and refuted (a part of) Stallman's more general theory.
What first caught my attention though was that somebody who's allegedly concerned with freedom, is an advocate of, among other things, public education and 'national' 'defense'.
Also, all the rest of 'free' socialist programs he favors require high levels of taxation. But of course, robbery is freedom.
Right, all of that stuff ought to be funded by voluntary contributions, either from self-interest or compassion and generosity. Robbery is unprovoked aggression.
What's needed long term is conversion of betas into gammas. With enough gammas, the state will arguably wither away. But I'll be dead long before then, so I focus on the process.
When I first read it I missed this line
"Copyright (c) 2013 Richard Stallman Verbatim copying and redistribution of this entire page are permitted provided this notice is preserved. "
LMAO! unintentional self-parody at its best.
No, he's just saying that he'll track you down and kick your ass if you fuck with his shit. There's no state required for that ;)
Well, the copyright notice looks like a US government copyright notice. But that's not what I was getting at anyway.
Yes, you're right. He could have used non-state terminology.
The thing is, as Rysiek pointed out, Stallman's position doesn't seem fully consistent.
And Mirimir, you've just violated Stallman's copyright! It says "verbatim copying" but you added a comment of your own inside Stallman's text. Brace yourself!
Not at all. Short quotes in reviews etc are fair use.
I think it inappropriate to insert your own text in a quoted block without making it clear that you're misquoting someone deliberately. Whatever your (provably false with well established psych/sociological research) notions of personal merit vs. wealth, they are not Stallman's: keep them out of the block, or don't pretend it's a quote. On 12 January 2015 17:07:05 GMT+00:00, Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
On 01/11/2015 10:39 PM, Juan wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jan 2015 23:00:38 -0500 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
about serious stuff like constantly invoking freedom while being a crass statist.
It's a trap!
Ha. Wait!
Stallman opines therein:
| Above all, we need a state in order to have democracy, which | is the system by which the many non-rich [aka beta, weak, | clueless, stupid, etc] join together to overcome the power | of the rich [aka alpha, powerful, skilled, smart, etc] and | thus deny them control over society.
I agree, but only provisionally, and only if the alphas don't control the state. However, alphas typically do end up controlling the state, and that's the fatal defect. What's needed long term is conversion of betas into gammas. With enough gammas, the state will arguably wither away. But I'll be dead long before then, so I focus on the process.
When I first read it I missed this line
"Copyright (c) 2013 Richard Stallman Verbatim copying and redistribution of this entire page are permitted provided this notice is preserved. "
LMAO! unintentional self-parody at its best.
No, he's just saying that he'll track you down and kick your ass if you fuck with his shit. There's no state required for that ;)
-- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
On 01/12/2015 12:47 PM, Cathal (Phone) wrote:
I think it inappropriate to insert your own text in a quoted block without making it clear that you're misquoting someone deliberately. Whatever your (provably false with well established psych/sociological research) notions of personal merit vs. wealth, they are not Stallman's: keep them out of the block, or don't pretend it's a quote.
My condolences if you were misled. Enclosing insertions in quotes between square brackets is standard practice, I believe. I'm not arguing strongly that non-wealth reflects weakness, cluelessness or stupidity. The game is clearly rigged. And there are many worthy goals besides money. But I do believe strongly that victimhood is maladaptive.
On 12 January 2015 17:07:05 GMT+00:00, Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
On 01/11/2015 10:39 PM, Juan wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jan 2015 23:00:38 -0500 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
about serious stuff like constantly invoking freedom while being a crass statist.
It's a trap!
Ha. Wait!
Stallman opines therein:
| Above all, we need a state in order to have democracy, which | is the system by which the many non-rich [aka beta, weak, | clueless, stupid, etc] join together to overcome the power | of the rich [aka alpha, powerful, skilled, smart, etc] and | thus deny them control over society.
I agree, but only provisionally, and only if the alphas don't control the state. However, alphas typically do end up controlling the state, and that's the fatal defect. What's needed long term is conversion of betas into gammas. With enough gammas, the state will arguably wither away. But I'll be dead long before then, so I focus on the process.
When I first read it I missed this line
"Copyright (c) 2013 Richard Stallman Verbatim copying and redistribution of this entire page are permitted provided this notice is preserved. "
LMAO! unintentional self-parody at its best.
No, he's just saying that he'll track you down and kick your ass if you fuck with his shit. There's no state required for that ;)
On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 02:45:16PM -0600, Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:
2015-01-06 18:51 GMT+01:00 Georgi Guninski <guninski@guninski.com>:
Haskell language shit depending on GCC and claiming they "compile with portable assembler" don't make sense to me too, fuck Haskelli and its monads, sorry.
Not really sure how this factors into it. There's more than one Haskell compiler, you know? Haskell and monads are languages, and do not depend
I suppose I trolled about GHC: https://www.haskell.org/ghc/license Since I am in a trolling mood, let me give you the following benchmark to check your favorite language for speed: The fibonacci numbers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibonacci_number are defined by the linear recurrence: F(0)=0,F(1)=1,F(n)=F(n-1)+F(n-2) [1]. Using numerology, you can compute F(n) in O(log(n)). Compute F(n) via the slow recurrence [1]. Question: In haskell (or in your favourite language), how long does it take to compute F(2^32) modulo 2^32? Modulo 2^32 means working with C int's. The haskell fanatic called this "micro-benchmark". If you work in excel, you don't care if the popup shows in 0.1 or in 0.9 seconds. If you work with loops to 2^34, you might care if you use C or haskell IMHO. Best, -- Georgi
upon compilation to have meaning. Monads are like, kinda inevitable. You have them in your code, you just don't know.
As for the rest, GPL when something is everyone's property, BSD when you're actually just a company pushing a product or just don't care. There's not much between GPL and BSD. I'd like a structure where you have to pay to get in, but once you're in it's like GPL (but only with others who are "in"), instead of every closed source license out there.
Meanwhile we must not depend upon the bullshit copyright system to provide us with compensation. Distribution is no longer a challenge and no profit can be extracted from it anymore. Stop it already. Please stop ruining reality to create artificial scarcity, I want it not.
participants (12)
-
Cathal (Phone) -
Cathal Garvey
-
Dan White -
Georgi Guninski -
grarpamp -
Juan -
Lodewijk andré de la porte -
Mirimir -
rysiek -
Shawn K. Quinn -
Ted Smith -
Zenaan Harkness