2 RMS Books Hit Version 2.0 163
jrepin writes "The Free Software Foundation (FSF) has just released in tandem the second edition of its president and founder Richard Stallman's selected essays, Free Software, Free Society, and his semi-autobiography, Free as in Freedom: Richard Stallman and the Free Software Revolution."
Hm... (Score:2)
Re:Hm... (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought his work on the GPL V3, his statements against software patents, and his concerns about non GPL Java VMs and .Net were within the last 10 years and pretty spot on. His recent concerns about cell-phone tracking seemed prescient, too.
Re: (Score:2)
"he hasn't said anything worth listening to in almost a decade or more."
On the contrary. He has been consistent in his view the whole way. The fact that it isn't new to you does not mean it is not still worth listening to.
Where are the free PDF versions? (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Here [fsf.org] and here [gnu.org].
Good. The main pages didn't seem to mention these free version. They seemed to obfuscate the issue with the free to anonymously pay cash comment:
These books will be available electronically as PDFs but will notably not be distributed in the Amazon Kindle format or for any other proprietary ebook reading platform, because of the Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) those systems impose on users. "This malicious device," says Stallman, "is designed to attack the traditional freedoms of readers: There's th
Re: (Score:3)
Where are the free PDF versions? Aren't these books open? ;-)
So, what you're asking is basically: "Where's all the free beer?"
I agree. The thought has crossed my mind many a time; Some of us are less picky than others...
Sure, It's awesome when something is free as "in freedom",
but even more so when it's also free as "in beer".
I frequently enjoy the freedoms of free software, but where's all the beer it has been in?
HELLO! The beer is still drinkable! Just because it's got a bit of FLOSS in it
doesn't mean all of us would turn our nose up at it... so wastef
Re: (Score:3)
well, doesn't matter if it's harry potter 9, it's going to be available online if someone likes it.
but this is a plea for money, they need/want people to order the book for cash, for show of support and all that. i mean, they have a wholesalers contact on that page. when the fuck did fsf start doing wholesale discounts and review copies and signing tour agenting for rms? i mean, you get volume discounts from MS. so what the fuck guys, what the fuck? punch back to 1996 or so and I'm using linux because can'
Re: (Score:2)
I love the trolling, keep it up. ;)
But you didn't mention Apple or Steve Jobs nearly as much as you should have.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but the beer is only drinkable on the distributor's terms. They tell you when and where you can drink it. If the distributor goes belly up or stops making the beer, you don't know how to make it yourself and lose it forever . . . so wasteful. So this free beer is fine and all, but where is the freedom? I think that's the point. Free as in beer is a preferable short term solution. But RMS was looking in the long run, and in the long run, he has been right every goddam time.
Just an interesting note: I'm a coder and home-brewer... I work on open source software and share beer recipes with my friends at the local beer-club... People bring odd beers as well as their own creations, we taste them, many are good, others end up in the swill bucket. Fortunately my local home-brew supply store sponsors the meeting place for us (at their store), and there is always another beer-club to join, free beer to drink, and recipes to be had. (It's essential to keep a detailed log so that if
Re: (Score:2)
Surely you meant: Yes, but the beer is only distributable if you print the recipe on the bottle.
Re: (Score:2)
Books come with LaTex files? (Score:2)
Of course you know that the FSF has no problem with selling software [gnu.org] - it is all about "free as in speech" and not about "free as in beer".
Of course. I just thought it was amusing that they were not prominently displaying where to find the free PDFs as they want software publishers to prominently display where to find the source code. I guess to carry the joke further I should ask if the books code with a CD with the LaTex files? ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Cue the "PDF is a not truly free format" complaint
Considering it's Stallman he probably wrote them in Emacs in a specially compiled version of Slackware maybe with a GNU Hurd kernel.
Of course, X is never used, nor a wireless card and email is sent using Mutt or Alpine
If anyone needs the citation: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.os.openbsd.misc/134336/focus=134979 [gmane.org]
Diff (Score:2)
YES! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
This is not the right place for that type of complaint, Slashdot probably doesn't work properly on Lynx.
You also have a hard time commenting on it with wget/curl =P
It even takes html markup, I mean, that's for the brainwashed masses that use proprietary software, and put up with preposterous stuff as using an x86 processor!
Free Software, Free Society was an excellent book (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm wondering what the second edition adds or modifies. It would be hard to top the first one for incisiveness and succinctness.
And, as I've pointed out earlier... Much as I'd rather live in a country with a constitution than without one, so I'd rather release my works under the GPL than not. The GPL is the constitution that works towards my continued freedom as both an end-user and a developer. The BSD license is the license that allows other people to undermine and eventually destroy my freedom by building proprietary programs on top of mine that have a chance of eventually receiving all the time and attention of the world at large and thereby effectively destroying my freedom.
Network effects are the single most important factor in the economics of software development. A proprietary program that garners the time and attention of the world encourages the creation of other programs compatible with it, and not a free alternative, even if the proprietary program stemmed from that free alternative. Software is rendered obsolete by no longer functionally participating in the networked ecosystem of software. My 'free' program licensed under an excessively permissive license can be rendered useless by the existence of a proprietary program that was ultimately derived from the free program.
My continued freedom as a developer requires that I choose a license like the GPL.
You are just not as charitable as BSD dev ;-) (Score:4, Informative)
... The GPL is the constitution that works towards my continued freedom as both an end-user and a developer. The BSD license is the license that allows other people to undermine and eventually destroy my freedom by building proprietary programs on top of mine that have a chance of eventually receiving all the time and attention of the world at large and thereby effectively destroying my freedom ...
No. The BSD type licenses take nothing away from your freedom. You have your source, you can do whatever you want with it. Your network effect argument fails in two ways. First, you *assume* that your software would have become popular like the fork did. Your version, GPL'd or unforked BSD may have never caught on. The real work, the popular work, may have been the proprietary work. For example Apple's cocoa user interface code as opposed to the underlying freebsd code. You work may be the lesser replaceable part of the overall effort. Secondly, the network effect takes nothing away from you. For example linux works regardless of how many copies of ms windows are sold, and people are free to use and contribute to freebsd regardless of how many people use mac os x. There is no evidence to suggest that mac os x has diminished interest in or contributions to freebsd, quite the contrary actually. Mac os x elevated the awareness of and confidence in freebsd.
Please use the GPL all you care to, that is of course your right. However don't attempt the farcical arguments to deny the greater freedom of the BSD path and the greater charity of the BSD devs. Rather accept the reality of the restrictions of the GPL and argue that their altruistic nature justifies them.
Charitable, or stupid? (Score:5, Insightful)
First, you *assume* that your software would have become popular like the fork did. Your version, GPL'd or unforked BSD may have never caught on
No, he assumes works derived from his work would have become popular. His GPL'd work may have never caught on, but maybe someone else's GPL'd fork would have. The forked popular version benefitted from the unforked one, otherwise it would never have been based on it. But in the GPL scenario, both contributing parties benefit from the popularity. Follow the BSD path and only one would have. It's like if someone else patents an idea you developed before you had a chance to, and now you never get to benefit when the idea takes off.
You work may be the lesser replaceable part of the overall effort.
If it's not an important part, why are they using your work? On the other hand, if you realize your work wouldn't be a huge part of a larger application but you still don't want people to re-invent the wheel, you can still do the pragmatic thing and simply use the LGPL license.
For example linux works regardless of how many copies of ms windows are sold,
Linux and Windows are developed independently, which is a different argument than freebsd and OS X since they actually share a common base.
and people are free to use and contribute to freebsd regardless of how many people use mac os x
But if OS X works fine, why even bother with freebsd? If BSD was under the GPL license, or parts were LGPL, then freebsd would receive as many contributions as the part of OS X that freebsd is based on. As it is now, freebsd and OS X become fragmented, and some fixes in one aren't present in the other.
Charity is fine but if you want to help everyone, teach a man to fish instead of just giving him fish, he might even be able to improve fishing techniques and pass them on so that we can all fish better.
Charitable since it is an informed choice (Score:3)
I see merits to both sides, but I at least have to point out some flaws in your argument (which may allow you to strengthen it and we could both benefit, unless you want to keep any insight to yourself of course, that is your right).
In the spirit of BSD I will share my "insights" with all, both those who share my philosophical beliefs and those who do not. ;-)
First, you *assume* that your software would have become popular like the fork did. Your version, GPL'd or unforked BSD may have never caught on
No, he assumes works derived from his work would have become popular ...
Which is exactly what I meant by "unforked BSD". Again, that is a quite gratuitous assumption, quite the boot strapping.
... His GPL'd work may have never caught on, but maybe someone else's GPL'd fork would have. The forked popular version benefitted from the unforked one, otherwise it would never have been based on it. But in the GPL scenario, both contributing parties benefit from the popularity. Follow the BSD path and only one would have.
However the real point remains, no one is deprived of the benefits of the original work, as the OP was suggesting. As in FreeBSD users and developers are not deprived of their work by Apple's success with Mac OS X. They actually come out ahead given the increase
Re: (Score:2)
A closer feeding-the-hungry analogy would be the BSD camp is the charity that gives to a country that they know will takes the rice out of the bags with the US labels and repackage the rice into government labeled bags before distribution to the hungry. The GPL camp would be ones offering the rice under conditions, and when the conditions are refused, then no rice for you. Hey, don't blame me, I didn't start this feeding-the-hungry analogy. Perhaps we should just skip the analogies? :-)
The conditions being, of course, that the government must allow everybody to use the rice to plant their own rice fields if they so choose as well as distribute a brochure describing the best known ways to grow rice. One encourages dependence, the other demands the government foster independence or refuses to help them. Eventually the latter government's people will revolt and replace it with a better one that doesn't object to such eminently reasonable conditions and the whole country will be richer.
I like
Re: (Score:3)
A closer feeding-the-hungry analogy would be the BSD camp is the charity that gives to a country that they know will takes the rice out of the bags with the US labels and repackage the rice into government labeled bags before distribution to the hungry. The GPL camp would be ones offering the rice under conditions, and when the conditions are refused, then no rice for you. Hey, don't blame me, I didn't start this feeding-the-hungry analogy. Perhaps we should just skip the analogies? :-)
The conditions being, of course, that the government must allow everybody to use the rice to plant their own rice fields if they so choose as well as distribute a brochure describing the best known ways to grow rice ...
No. The controlling condition would be to not replace the bag with the GPL labeling and terms. Since the government refuses this the rice would never get to the hungry. Replanting would only occur in the hypotheticals of the idealists. ;-)
... One encourages dependence, the other demands the government foster independence or refuses to help them. Eventually the latter government's people will revolt and replace it with a better one that doesn't object to such eminently reasonable conditions and the whole country will be richer.
I like these analogies just fine.
So you are going the Che Gueverra route, its OK to sacrifice some peasants and increase their suffering in order to manufacture a revolution that will promote one's ideology. Apologies if I shocked anyone. I actually read Che's writing, I didn't just buy the t-shirt.
Re: (Score:2)
So you are going the Che Gueverra route, its OK to sacrifice some peasants and increase their suffering in order to manufacture a revolution that will promote one's ideology. Apologies if I shocked anyone. I actually read Che's writing, I didn't just buy the t-shirt.
When it comes to effort I'm contributing, you betcha. I want to make sure my efforts are going to something I can support and not going to help a cycle of continued helplessness and dependence. In fact, I'm quite shocked that you think helping people stay helpless and alive is better.
I rather resent you implying that my choice to not support dependence is the same as a choice to purposely kill people. I'm not the one holding the trigger or refusing food because the conditions require me to allow my people i
Re: (Score:2)
So you are going the Che Gueverra route, its OK to sacrifice some peasants and increase their suffering in order to manufacture a revolution that will promote one's ideology. Apologies if I shocked anyone. I actually read Che's writing, I didn't just buy the t-shirt.
When it comes to effort I'm contributing, you betcha. I want to make sure my efforts are going to something I can support and not going to help a cycle of continued helplessness and dependence. In fact, I'm quite shocked that you think helping people stay helpless and alive is better ...
Actually the reference was not to helpless people. Che advocated instigating violence against peasants that were comfortable and safe enough that they were not interested in socialist revolution. He saw a need to increase their misery and insecurity so that they would welcome revolution. Those who died in the process were merely the price to bring about the socialist state. These ideas of Che's were written in the context of spreading socialism to central and south america.
It was your silly analogy, you cho
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the reference was not to helpless people. Che advocated instigating violence against peasants that were comfortable and safe enough that they were not interested in socialist revolution. He saw a need to increase their misery and insecurity so that they would welcome revolution. Those who died in the process were merely the price to bring about the socialist state. These ideas of Che's were written in the context of spreading socialism to central and south america.
Peasants who are fat and happy do not need rice. I have no interest in destroying their world. And you are switching and shifting the situation to suit yourself if that's how you meant it.
It was your silly analogy, you chose the revolt will make everything better stuff. Sorry if your chosen side didn't quite represent what you expected.
My silly analogy is perfectly fine. Your re-interpretation and twisting is not. There is a big difference between witholding help and actively harming.
Re: (Score:2)
>> ...As it is now, freebsd and OS X become fragmented, and some fixes in one aren't present in the other.
> That is untrue. Apple has contributed to FreeBSD. Apple has even contributed code that was formerly proprietary, HFS+ (file system) code for example.
By saying that the original statement is untrue, you are effectively claiming that *all* fixes Apple made have been pushed back to BSD. I'd like to see some evidence of that, please.
Re: (Score:2)
>> ...As it is now, freebsd and OS X become fragmented, and some fixes in one aren't present in the other.
> That is untrue. Apple has contributed to FreeBSD. Apple has even contributed code that was formerly proprietary, HFS+ (file system) code for example.
By saying that the original statement is untrue, you are effectively claiming that *all* fixes Apple made have been pushed back to BSD. I'd like to see some evidence of that, please.
The layer of Mac OS X that uses BSD, Darwin, is itself open sourced by Apple. Not only are there fixes in there, but FreeBSD can take any code at all that they think may be useful. My understanding is that the FreeBSD folks do mine Darwin. Also, some Apple employees have been granted "committer" status for the FreeBSD source.
What Apple says:
"The Darwin layer of Mac OS X comprises the kernel, drivers, and BSD portions of the system and is based primarily on open source technologies."
http://developer.app [apple.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I stand corrected. Thank you for that information.
Re:You are just not as charitable as BSD dev ;-) (Score:4, Insightful)
The real work, the popular work, may have been the proprietary work. For example Apple's cocoa user interface code as opposed to the underlying freebsd code.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Yeah.... the "real" work was cocoa and not the entire underlying OS... meh, whatever. If BSD Unix had used a license like the GPL, apple would have had to find some other OS to leach off of -- Or maybe BSD Unix would be a strong competitor in the online serverspace, and smartphone niches that Apple's OSX and Linux fills?
You act like there's no real-world examples of BSD vs GPL. Your Apple vs Unix vs Linux example disproves your argument! It's not like we have no examples of how BSD can just be gobbled up into a proprietary software, and how GPL software doesn't allow such a thing, and how well each different community is doing as a result... (Note: Even TiVO has to give their changes back to the communtiy, thus enabling ME to make my own TiVO with the same codebase if I wish -- ergo, GPL2 isn't poisonous for hardware makers).
GPL'd GNU/Linux gets better when it gets used by big players in the software space -- BSD? Well, It just gets used as a base, and is left as it was before hand... Additionally, devs can be sniped from the BSD projects and go to work for the proprietary vendor, further weakening the BSD community project.
Re: (Score:3)
The real work, the popular work, may have been the proprietary work. For example Apple's cocoa user interface code as opposed to the underlying freebsd code.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Yeah.... the "real" work was cocoa and not the entire underlying OS... meh, whatever.
From the consumer's point of view that is the case. They aren't buying Macs to type "vi letter-to-grandma.txt ; lp letter-to-grandma.txt", they don't even know they had that option. ;-)
... If BSD Unix had used a license like the GPL, apple would have had to find some other OS to leach off of -- Or maybe BSD Unix would be a strong competitor in the online serverspace, and smartphone niches that Apple's OSX and Linux fills?
Actually Linux does not really compete in the smartphone space. The Linux based phones failed and Android phones are no more Linux than Mac OS X is FreeBSD. Android could replace the Linux kernel and few users would know or care, as Apple could replace FreeBSD and few Mac users would know or care. Hell, many Android devs are
Re: (Score:2)
BSDers are hard to understand - they're like neighbours who complain of the obligation that borrowing tools and/or asking for help will place upon them. It might seem strange, but if you use peoples resources to build a patio they'll probably expect to be invited over for a barbecue (yes, even if that toolbox was "doing nothing" before you used it). What seems like an imposition to you makes others feel part of a community.
They may even feel more annoyed if your patio blocks their afternoon sun so eve
Re: (Score:2)
It does if the person who distributed software to me decided to close the source.
Did I get the source?
The GPL ensures the first, by answering the second.
The BSD path has different freedom, one that can constrict and be denied wholly to people down the line. And yes, charity
The best part: (Score:3, Interesting)
These were typeset with the FREE TeX and uses the FREE Computer Modern Roman fonts. The previous edition [oreilly.com] was typeset with FrameMaker and uses Adobe's Sabon fonts.
I had a free (as in torrent) copy of the previous version, but I couldn't read it knowing that it had been typeset with non-FREE software.
'Fringe' today, pillar tomorrow. (Score:5, Insightful)
Today, thankfully, we dont have much prosecution. but labeling, despising, outcasting pioneers continue.
Stallman is no different. what he is bringing forth will underlie the basis of the society tomorrow.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hm, it already did happen. Nowadays most programmers won't touch closed-source libraries with a ten foot pole.
Win32, .Net? Cocoa Touch?
A fair proportion of all programmers probably deal with those closed source libraries every day.
People used to be fine with weird undocumented file formats, now it's insane to even suggest it and whole governments throw your solutiion away when its file formats are undocumented.
Most people are still fine with undocumented file formats.
Vendor lock-in is prosecuted by the courts and in some cases made illegal by the law to even try.
Citation needed.
Many many more people are aware of the dangers of DRM and wary of throwing money into the gutter.
And yet people still buy Kindles and iPods.
There are projects for Free hardware, Free operating systems, all the way up to CAD applications and math programs.
But for the most part they are not getting any traction.
What change exactly are you waiting for?
It was claimed that Stallman is instigating societal change, not a change merely within the software industry. Most people I know have never even heard of him. Most people I know don't give a flying fuck about being
Re: (Score:2)
Win32, .Net? Cocoa Touch?
reaaaaaaalllyy.... what ARE those ? show me one popular/common program each, which has been produced by using those that a lot of people use.
A fair proportion of all programmers probably deal with those closed source libraries every day.
maybe a few libraries that they HAVE to. but really, 10-20 people who are probably using obscure libraries ? like the above ?
Most people are still fine with undocumented file formats.
quite. that is of course if you had been following the news about open document format requirements of countries, organizations here and on other tech sites with your ass instead of your eyes.
Citation needed.
where are your citations ? who are the 'most people' f
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The PDF's don't seem free, merely cash is OK (Score:2)
From TFA:
These books will be available electronically as PDFs but will notably not be distributed in the Amazon Kindle format or for any other proprietary ebook reading platform, because of the Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) those systems impose on users. "This malicious device," says Stallman, "is designed to attack the traditional freedoms of readers: There's the freedom to acquire a book anonymously, paying cash
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No, they are really free as in free beer out there. Just Google it. The first result of 'Free as in Freedom 2.0 PDF' is the download from the FSF. So go download it.
That's good. Another commenter was kind enough to provide links: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2135728&cid=36063704 [slashdot.org]
;-)
The FSF seems to be obfuscating the fact that free versions are available.
Re: (Score:3)
Given that this is Stallman, I would expect nothing less than the original LaTeX source. PDF is horrible from format shifting perspective (I guess RMS really doesn't want you to read this on Kindle ~)
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I have simply bought a Kindle DX, where PDFs are actually readable as is. ~
Re: (Score:2)
Yes me too. I thought that it would be free online. I guess he is just making a point and maybe expecting $ to boot. I'm a little curious what RMS thinks about IP in general and his place in the world but not buy his book curious.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Free as in BSD (Score:4, Interesting)
And some people have this funny belief that true freedom applies to everybody. If I write code under a free license then everyone should be free to do with it as they will, no restrictions. Otherwise it isn't free: in "protection from" Vs. "freedom to" the freer one is the one with the word "free" in it. Doesn't seem so hard to understand to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's your choice, but I don't think that the FSF will close source on you.
I want to warn you that you are probably wasting your time, unless of course your goal was to demonstrate how unreasonable people can be.
This is like far too many arguments over what approach should be taken or what people should do for what amount to personal decisions. The people arguing against you in this thread are like little lemmings marching in lock-step to the beat of a general failed sentiment: it's never good enough for them to use what they believe in, and to not use what they don't believe in
Re: (Score:3)
There are legitimate complaints against the GPL. The most notable one is you can't make money from modifying or using the software if everyone can copy it for free. It's good for school projects and vendors who sell "support" but for actual software developers who want to make a living writing software it's not the best license to use. Does that make it less free? You make the call.
Re: (Score:2)
The most notable one is you can't make money from modifying
Wrong. I have friend who own a company which makes money by taking GPL licensed code and adapting to a specific business needs. How is that not making money from modifying it?
Re: (Score:2)
There are legitimate complaints against the GPL. The most notable one is you can't make money from modifying or using someone else's software if everyone can copy it for free. It's good for school projects and vendors who sell "support" but for actual software developers who want to make a living writing software it's not the best license to use. Does that make it less free? You make the call.
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
"want to make a living writing software"
I want a damned pegasus, but I've never seen one. I want my own Abrams tank, too. And, a Landrover fitted as an APC. A person can "want" all they care to, that doesn't "entitle" them. And, that's what your post boils down to. "I should be ENTITLED to sit around playing with code, and be given the best that the world has to offer for my efforts!"
There's not much of a call to make. In general (but not in all cases) people who oppose the GPL think that they are spe
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say everything has to turn a profit. I just said you couldn't earn a profit by using GPL software, which is also the main complaint against using GPL software. It's a good license for academics. It's not a good license for earning a living.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say everything has to turn a profit. I just said you couldn't earn a profit by using GPL software, which is also the main complaint against using GPL software. It's a good license for academics. It's not a good license for earning a living.
The existence of GPL software has not put Microsoft and other software companies out of business. If it had, I would consider your point valid though I'd still disagree with the premise that there's anything wrong with free software.
You still refuse to address this one point though. You say "[the GPL is] not a good license for earning a living." Okay. If you think so, then the next time you write software, release it under a commercial license. Problem solved. Again, where is the complaint? I want to
Re: (Score:2)
The only complaint is some people call GPL free. Other than that there's nothing to complain about.
Re: (Score:2)
"because by God the other guy has to be converted too."
You've put a couple years of metaphysics study into this post . . .
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, I find the same logic follows for a lot of GPL zealots.
Re: (Score:2)
Not true. Anyone is free to write code, license it under the GPL, the LGPL, or the AGLP, and retain copyright.
And it's GNU/RMS, you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah it applies to the FSF license and no, nobody is forcing you to use it just like no one is forcing you to cut off your toes. But that doesn't make either idea good.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Somehow people have this funny belief that if you take someone else's code, you should give back to the community that you took it from.
And this is exactly what makes GPL non-free. It's a great moral to live by, and I fully support it's use, but it's not freedom. Freedom involves letting people chose for themselves.
Users, developers, and software (Score:2)
Someone to whom I would give credit if I could remember his/her name suggested that the opposite of free software is enslaved software. In this view, it is the software and not the user or developer whose freedom is guaranteed by the GPL.
Pretty sure that's not what rms meant to say, but an interesting perspective nonetheless.
Re: (Score:2)
When the software can think and feel, I'll give a damn about it's rights. Until then it's the users/developers taht matter.
Re:Free as in BSD (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Free as in BSD (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Free as in BSD (Score:4, Informative)
I'm tired of this sad trolling. GPL advocates never complain about the BSD license. It's only BSD advocates that complain about the GPL. You know what? Just because you want to use other people's code without having to respect their conditions doesn't give you the grounds to demean the GPL, dude.
Actually some GPL types don't respect the wishes of others as well, or possibly legal obligations.
Regarding the actions by some GPL types who take dual licensed code and remove the non-GPL license in an attempt to make the code GPL only:
http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/openbsd-misc/2007/9/1/153822 [kerneltrap.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By that logic no group respects anything since you could find at least one instance where a member of a group doesn't...
No, that's a quite erroneous interpretation.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, misread. I still fail to see what the argument is. Some people do things wrongly, what is the relevance to the group?
OTOH if BSD-only advocates would stop spreading half-truths (to be generous) like "free for any purpose, unlike the GPL" if they want to see fewer incidents of this nature. Your license has restrictions as well, get off the ideological high-horse.
Re: (Score:2)
OTOH if BSD-only advocates would stop spreading half-truths (to be generous) like "free for any purpose, unlike the GPL" if they want to see fewer incidents of this nature.
Wait, you're trying to tell me that the people that perpetrate such incidents (attempting to hijack code to make it GPL only) aren't responsible for their own actions, or even that the BSD advocates bear any responsibility for making such people make bad decisions? If so, you've lost all credibility, and I'll just go ahead and ignore you from here on out.
Re: (Score:2)
Or it could be, you know, a mistake... People mess up with licenses all the time, if they correct it and don't repeat the same mistake twice I generally don't tend to paint it as malice. Clearly you seem to have different standards.
People who are legal experts interpreting a license in the light that most of the community advocating it paint in? They aren't just
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Better awareness of potential licensing issues is quite likely to reduce the amount of mistakes. It took a while before the repeated "if you use GPL code you need to distribute the source" to really sink in. As it stands what we mostly hear about the BSD license is "not like the GPL", "GPL compatible" and "fr
Re: (Score:2)
What ever happened to those wireless drivers again? I think OpenBSD wrote it, and it's BSD, and the Linux Wireless folks took it (at OpenBSD's urging) then promptly removed the BSD license and slapped on GPL licenses.
So now, the
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure that the violation got fixed and some developers learned that the BSD comes with more strings for people distributing source then people who only distribute binaries. Why?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not seeing the point of putting both licenses on the same code. They don't seem compatible like that. With one license you achieve a stock of code that moves in an out of proprietary and sharable. The other license keeps the code forever sharable/modifiable with no exception. I can't see a way to make them work in tangent unless the code only follows gpl rules, and then the bsd license becomes redundant for that segment of code.
Can someone please enlighten me as to the point of this?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Free as in BSD (Score:4, Insightful)
You know, that could just be because people who use the GPL can freely use any BSD code they want, but people who want to use the BSD license are blocked from using GPL code.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Again in English?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they have a problem with people exercising the freedoms they granted them, why did they give that freedom in the first place?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Closed source advocates never complain about the GPL, it's only GPL advocates that complain about closed source ;)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm tired of this sad trolling.
Then why are you on /. ?
GPL advocates never complain about the BSD license. It's only BSD advocates that complain about the GPL.
The GPL advocates are definitely more subtle about it -- they usually don't stage frontal assaults on BSD. They don't have to. GPL advocates have successfully created an environment where their concept of "freedom" is widely taken to be the one and only true definition. Any attempt by BSD advocates to challenge the GPL definition of freedom is seen as trolling. Like many "hot button" social issues, it's difficult to have a reasoned discussion, and even when you do, few minds are
Re: (Score:3)
The definition includes the BSD license. It is even recommended in cases where broad penetration is desired. It just that the definition does not require an adaptable license.
Since there isn't a "GPL definition of freedom" this isn't unreasonable. I suspect this is because t
Re: (Score:3)
BSD advocates are doing exactly what GPL advocates do: complaining about less-permissive licensing schemes.
GPL supporters regularly and loudly complain about less-permissive licensing schemes (see: Apple's iOS App Store, Microsoft, any other company that has not embraced the One True Way).
The attitude seems to be, "Everybody who is less permissive than us sucks because we can't use their shit, but anybody who's more permissive than us? Oh well, thanks for
Re:Free as in BSD (Score:5, Insightful)
Troll. If you think that a license does not suit you, do not use it, use another one. Nobody is taking away your freedom as a developer to choose the license you prefer, or to write your own implementation. But as a developer myself, I don't see why you should benefit from my code, my hard work and my creativeness, close-source it, and invest maybe some marketing resources in it to drive me out of the market.
Fantasy? No. Personal experience. A loss of several thousands of euro from my part. So, keep your BSD license, I'll keep my GPL, thanks.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
With BSD, the source code remains free only as long as interest in the source code itself is retained. If interest in the source code d
Re: (Score:2)
Free as in perpetual state of war between individuals, because a set a of laws that does not give the bully the right to kill at will is not equal to freedom.
Or, to put it simpler, restricting some freedoms might be necessary to ensure others. Right to swing a fist, right to keep people from knowing what their computer is doing, etc.
Re:Free as in BSD (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The BSD is neutral on the matter and allows everyone to do whatever THEY want with code.
No it doesn't. I would for example like to put it under the GPL, but the license forbids me from doing that. I'd also like to claim it as my own work, but you don't allow that either.
All of you BSD=true freedom people should eat your own dogfood and put your work under the public domain if it's true freedom you're after. Until you do you need to realise that you only like a different set of restrictions than those of us that prefer the GPL. Which we incidentally thinks promotes more freedom than your partic
Re: (Score:2)
You want to release some software under BSD, go right ahead but don't bitch about what others are doing. Since GPL is more popular is seems like you're on the losing side, so sorry about that.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, that's perfectly rational thinking. Evolution, the whole of biology, and even economics is based on just that notion: the fuck do I care what happens to you as long as it increases my chances of survival/my fitness/my happiness. Being altruistic is by definition a losing move in any game, which is why altruists always make sure their altruism benefits them the most.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, that's perfectly rational thinking. Evolution, the whole of biology, and even economics is based on just that notion: the fuck do I care what happens to you as long as it increases my chances of survival/my fitness/my happiness. Being altruistic is by definition a losing move in any game, which is why altruists always make sure their altruism benefits them the most.
Except that you are totally wrong [discovermagazine.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Did you know that scientific studies prove that BSDed code is closed-source. Wait no... that's not right.