Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 11th Nov 2012 15:49 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 542040
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by marcp
by ze_jerkface on Mon 12th Nov 2012 00:01
in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by marcp"
GPL? come on ... have you ever heard of BSD? do you even know the history of IT?
BSD doesn't try to redefine the word freedom. They state what you are free to do with the license and that is the end of it. It's the GPL that capitalizes and redefines freedom in a creepy newspeak fashion.
PDPs used by the academics was there BEFORE personal computing era.
Researchers share and hide their work depending on the situation, don't act like academia is one big hippie share fest.
I'm talking about this code being shared freely between various academic places.
No you tried perpetrating a common GPL myth that the software world was some open source utopia before the ebil proprietary companies showed up.
Do you really think it's all about money? do you think it was all pushed there only for money? read about Thompson and Ritchie.
Money and proprietary software are not mutually exclusive. Anyways Thomson and Ritchie worked for Bell labs which was funded by AT&T. It wasn't an open source project so I'm not sure where you are going with this.
I think you might have bought into a few myths from the the cult of the GPL. That's understandable given how widely accepted they are on places like Slashdot.
RE[4]: Comment by marcp
by tylerdurden on Mon 12th Nov 2012 00:43
in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by marcp"
[It's the GPL that capitalizes and redefines freedom in a creepy newspeak fashion.
There's the definition, and there's the actual concept and its effects. Like it or not, the real world doesn't care how freedom is defined. What matters is what you actually get as a result.
In some cases, the result you get with GPL licence is more beneficial than BSD.
What's creepy is that people consider freedom to include "freedom to screw others over". There's simply no such thing as absolute freedom - there will always be contention. Ultimately there is a choice between GPL and BSD that anyone can make so it's disturbing how people can view the existence of something contrary to their ideas as somehow personally affecting them.
"GPL? come on ... have you ever heard of BSD? do you even know the history of IT?
BSD doesn't try to redefine the word freedom. They state what you are free to do with the license and that is the end of it. It's the GPL that capitalizes and redefines freedom in a creepy newspeak fashion.
PDPs used by the academics was there BEFORE personal computing era.
Researchers share and hide their work depending on the situation, don't act like academia is one big hippie share fest.
I'm talking about this code being shared freely between various academic places.
No you tried perpetrating a common GPL myth that the software world was some open source utopia before the ebil proprietary companies showed up.
Do you really think it's all about money? do you think it was all pushed there only for money? read about Thompson and Ritchie.
Money and proprietary software are not mutually exclusive. Anyways Thomson and Ritchie worked for Bell labs which was funded by AT&T. It wasn't an open source project so I'm not sure where you are going with this.
I think you might have bought into a few myths from the the cult of the GPL. That's understandable given how widely accepted they are on places like Slashdot. "
One man's freedom is another man's prison, I suppose.
BTW, FOSS software claims to be "freedom software" from a user's point of view, not a commercial developer's point of view. Since the vast majority of people are computer users not developers, this point of view is by far the most relevant. It also means that true FOSS software is largely written by its own users.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Manifesto
The GNU Manifesto begins by outlining the goal of the project GNU, which stands for GNU's Not Unix. The current contents of GNU at the time of writing are then described and detailed. Richard Stallman then goes into an explanation of why it is important that they complete this project. The reason he explains is based on Unix becoming a proprietary software. It then explains how people can contribute to the project, and also why computer users will benefit from the project.
You seem to have utterly confused this point. The BSD license, for example, allows a commercial developer the complete freedom to take BSD-licensed code, re-package and re-sell it within another commercial closed-source application, and thereby completely screw over the end users.
Edited 2012-11-12 11:46 UTC
BSD doesn't redefine word "free". It just estabilishes freedom to use software however you want. Ergo: it gives you a TOTAL freedom.
Researchers SHARE their work and that's what they supposed to do in education, which is - surprise, surprise - about learning, research, sharing discoveries, etc. I think you are deeply wrong on this subject.
Ritchie and Thompson did their greates things against their own employer, he didn't even know they were working on the particular stuff. He just gave them much more freedom, because it was research.
I didn't try to perpetrate anything, so keep that utter stuff for yourself. This is how you overlooked and misunderstood the things I said.





Member since:
2007-11-23
GPL? come on ... have you ever heard of BSD? do you even know the history of IT?
PDPs used by the academics was there BEFORE personal computing era. I'm talking about this code being shared freely between various academic places. Don't tell me you didn't know that. Do you really think it's all about money? do you think it was all pushed there only for money? read about Thompson and Ritchie. You'll see it was actually against mainstream first. It was for fun, joy, out of curiosity, to build something news, not for money at all. It is called research. Then it's eventually pushed to the folks from various corporations. At least that's how it worked then. Now it may be all about money, unfortunately. That's probobly why we have so much crap out there.
@werecatf - you see, that was not being said literally, but it's the meaning you can read out of people's comments. "Get over it, it's normal, accept it, you don't have any choice anyway. Shut up and stop whining".