Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 1st Jun 2012 23:56 UTC, submitted by Modafinil
GNU, GPL, Open Source "The Samba Team and seven kernel hackers have come together with Software Freedom Conservancy to help efforts to ensure compliance with the GPL by those who implement Linux and other GPL software. Richard Hillesley talked to Bradley Kuhn of Software Freedom Conservancy, Jeremy Allison of Samba, and Matthew Garrett, who works in his spare time with the GPL Compliance Project for Linux Developers."
Permalink for comment 520970
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: LOL
by zima on Wed 6th Jun 2012 02:58 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: LOL"
Member since:

when (not if) somebody creates a Star Trek-style replicator and you can clone a loaf of bread and infinite amount of times


The world already has replicators: they're called "life" or "civilisation" - and it is unclear, an open question, if very much more efficient ones are practical in our universe (something like this would have insane evolutionary advantage, hence would almost certainly show up & take over already: if not within our biosphere - obviously not, for now - then at least within likely billions other biospheres in the universe, spreading and visibly transforming it ...possibly reaching and ~consuming us by now)

That loaf of bread is already basically replicated.

(generally, those are tools of storytelling; and cargo cults, modern mythologies, really - in those we always wished for something silly to be true; plus here, silliness of lack of real implications of such tech - it would massively transform the world, much more than "instant PO box" model in Star Trek, and it would do so parallel to its gradual improvements, not immediately such advanced; oh yeah, the route progress was silly - in TOS they synthesised food, which is among the harder things; and transporters in TOS were really better replicators than replicators in TNG, and also without real implications)

Oh, and "infinite" is a very large number in a universe of finite energy, resources, with a finite time to its heat death.

What I am saying is that if we accept one type of software license, we must by extension accept them ALL. As long as we're allowing developers to make the rules, we can't say that some developers are allowed to dictate the terms by wich their software can be used and/or distributed and some aren't allowed to do this, just because some developers set up terms that are more restrictive than you would like.

GPL itself has no real relevance on non-GPL code, doesn't say or allows/disallows anything about it.
But yeah, we can choose what licenses we personally accept, which we use and which not, what's so shocking about that? Are you proposing that the only healthy non-PD situation is when we all strive to use every possible type of license?

Thus I think it is logical to not allow developers to make the rules anymore, since most of their rules end up being detrimental to end-users anyway. In essence, we've set up a system where developers have 100% of the control, and it ain't right.

Well the thing about GPL is that it pushes the stakes in favour of users, general population...

Reply Parent Score: 2