RMS kindly agreed to be interviewed again by OFB’s Timothy R. Butler on what he is up to, where the Foundation’s popular GPL license is heading and his perspective concerning various changes in the GNU/Linux community since his last interview here.
Stallman on the State of GNU/Linux
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
[quote]
Sorry, but I’m having a hard time understanding this. You’re saying that the original BSD code Apple used is still there? If so, I never said it wasn’t. However, had they gone with the Linux kernel, the original code plus any of their modifications would be freely available under the GPL.
Now before you jump down my throat, I also understand that Open Darwin is out there. But Apple can take that code and close up shop any time they feel like it, as it is no longer under the BSD license. See the difference?
[end quote]
sure, they can shut down the code that has ~their changes~
as in… the code ~they~ added… ~themselves~
or anything under Apple’s licence is handled differently I believe.
But what’s out there keeps on pluggin’ on.
FreeBSD isnt frozen in time at the point where someone forked it
it has made its own progress forward, and there is STILL no reason someone else can’t make something different, maybe better.
I will say that a BSD licensed program and a gpl licensed program do both allow the freedom of mind I am talking about. What we are discussing here is distributions of the content of that mind. Essentially my point of view is that, yes you have the freedom of speech, but you do not have the right to yell “fire” in a crowded theater (if there isn’t actually a fire). You can imagine yelling fire in a crowded theater all day, but law tells you that you shouldn’t, because it can harm the freedom of others, as they can be trampled and die needlessly. Again, software is not as dramatic, but the BSD basically says that expression is allowed. The GPL would say the restriction is the protection of freedom of others.
Both of them allow for the complete freedom of mind on your own computer. They say nothing that prevents you from mixing whatever you want on your own computer, or thinking whatever you want… it is at the point of distribution that they differ, and since language is like code, that is why I draw the comparison of the crowded theater.
I have said before though, that BSD is the best strategy for us to get standards adopted in the short term, simply for the fact that large companies and monopolies can’t keep their hands out of the cookie jar.
That is a definite advantage to BSD at this particular point in time since their are so many overwhelmingly powerful proprietary companies. Hopefully, in the future however, when gpl software becomes even more prominent, standards will find a way to be adopted as gpl items.
It isn’t that I don’t respect the things that bsd has delivered in terms of industry standards for the short term, it is just that long term it is not the ideal path, especially for programs that have nothing to do with standards adoption.
The BSD is our best trick at this time to control the standards we want to see. Even then, there is no guarentee that proprietary companies will actually put their hands in the cookie jar… as apple will not allow ogg on ipods. So, it isn’t a very powerful strategy if we define it by that example.
I will still suggest the long-term power of gpl over bsd for any project. In a few years, Linux might give the gpl the extra strength it needs to become a standards developing medium of its own.
And no, I’m not the AQ from lugradio, though I just started listening to that show about 2 weeks ago and its been entertaining.
excellent point
I agree, there are some places the GPL is a better choice.
Hehe, woah, msn chat is that way —->
well put.
hopefully discussion will pick back up when “Freedom” or “Sand” or whatever they want to call themselves leaves.
I know what you mean. Aren’t trolls the worst!? They just drive me nuts!
Why is it that Stallman is never challenged by his interviewers? I mean, that line about BSD advocates complaining about protecting the freedom of other people… why do interviewers let him get away with *that*?
Did you read this thread? I see a lot of BSD advocates complaining about the freedom to take away others’ freedom.
How would you respond to *that* if you were the interviewer?
So closed source software somehow prevents freedom of mind. Come on most people don’t want to look at your the code. They want a utility or some functionality. How it works is irrelevant. For those who feel they must have the source just don’t used closed source software. But don’t tell people there minds are not free because they enter into agreements with closed source companies for software which provides them with some functionality the need.
And please your implied freedom if it ever had its way would severly impede others rights to enter into agreements for closed source software.
But please explain which kinds of thought non-free software prevents and how our minds have lost freedom.
(I would like to apologize for not being able to repsond to everything, but I had to leave and a lot built-up discussion-wise and also I have something else I need to do and so I’ll keep it short)
AQ: I will say that a BSD licensed program and a gpl licensed program do both allow the freedom of mind I am talking about. What we are discussing here is distributions of the content of that mind. Essentially my point of view is that, yes you have the freedom of speech, but you do not have the right to yell “fire” in a crowded theater (if there isn’t actually a fire). You can imagine yelling fire in a crowded theater all day, but law tells you that you shouldn’t, because it can harm the freedom of others, as they can be trampled and die needlessly. Again, software is not as dramatic, but the BSD basically says that expression is allowed. The GPL would say the restriction is the protection of freedom of others.
Now see… I view the GPL differently… To me, its like a law that says “You shall not use speech to interefere with someone’s else speech irregardless of the reason.” Or in other words… You would be unable to make laws that prevent people from yelling “fire” in a crowded theater when there isn’t a fire because their right to free speech is absolute and may not be violated.
Whereas… BSD is something that states “You shall use speech for whatever in the world you want.” Or in other words you can use it to craft said laws. Of course, you can also use it to craft laws to keep people from disagreeing with you or doing any number of other things.
I honestly don’t completely agree with either point of view. I think speech can be used in a negative manner and so it should be restricted and so I cannot support allowing anyone to use speech however they like.
By extension… I also do not feel that free software is nessecarily that best choice in ALL situations and as a result I cannot support that either. I personally believe that software is a more complicated issue than alot of people make it out to be.
BSD does not even remotely solve said problem, but it doesn’t pretend to either. To me, it’s like “abstaining”.
To me the problem remains unresolved no matter how people may pretend that the GPL solves it. At the moment I prefer BSD, because of it’s “absolute freedom”. Why? because when a solution does come it will be able to make use of the BSD code, but it WON’T be able to make use of the GPL code, I’m certain of this because of the restrictions placed on the GPL.
software patents….
if you live in any of the EU countries, visit this site and thank Poland for getting the patent review thrown out.
http://thankpoland.info/
US people, have a look too, you will see where your country went wrong with its greed
“Did you read this thread? I see a lot of BSD advocates complaining about the freedom to take away others’ freedom. How would you respond to *that* if you were the interviewer?”
I was refering to this comment in the interview:
“It is absurd to speak of the “freedom to take away others’ freedom”. The absence of that absurdity is what they are complaining about.”
Stallman is implying that the BSD license takes away others’ freedom, and was unchallenged by the interviewers on his opinion. All Stallman interviews go pretty much the same. I’m not saying that the people who interview him should try to disprove his points or anything like that. But the journalists should ask hard questions; many of the questions raised in this thread would have been valid candidates. As it is the readers are simply told that BSD is taking away their freedom, without someone asking why or why not.
All Stallman interviews in the last few years pretty much consist of restating things that we’ve heard for ages now: proprietary software sucks, and “not Linux, but GNU/Linux”. The FSF is also doing nothing but advocating free software. No market research is done to demonstrate a need for a free software only world, and in fact much of what (e.g. HURD) is developed by the FSF isn’t funded by user groups, which is one of the fundamental ideas behind free software (software as a service funded by user groups). I’m willing to bet most of the FSF funding is spent on political activities.
Such issues are never brought up in Stallman interviews, and I think this is one of the reasons each of his interviews feels like it has been published before (same points restated over and over, year after year).
Or maybe it has to do with his personality, I’ve read that he counters many questions with “that doesn’t make sense” types of answers. But still…
Yeah, the talking points kinda suck. I was also referring to the interview with my *that* question.. But I liked Stallman’s comment. I thought that was very relevant to the types of comments supposed BSD advocates are making about the GPL restricting freedom and such.
Personally I suspect most of the FUD thrown around on these forums is being funded by the big corps, but I’m kinda paranoid like that. I just don’t trust those dirty capitalists. Some people would do anything for money.
All Stallman interviews in the last few years pretty much consist of restating things that we’ve heard for ages now: proprietary software sucks, and “not Linux, but GNU/Linux”
Sorry to restate them again, but the details of these issues are important, are they not? It sucks to hear them repeated over and over again, like the details of the license itself. But although minor, their impact economicly and socially is significant.
These memes are like GNU marketting. Some organizations pay millions for their marketting departments. GNU has Stallman. Controversy sells.
FUD? I thought many of those posters brought up some very valid points. Like many others here, I’m not religious about software, and I don’t feel like any software I use, whether proprietary, open source, or free (as defined by the FSF), is taking away my freedom, as nobody forced me to use the software in the first place.
In the FSF world, software can never serve as a business differentiator, as said software would be available to everyone once distributed. I think software is a very valid business differentiator, and it would take much more than mere advocation from the FSF to convince me of the opposite.
The basic principle is “who” or “what” is free when it comes to GPL vs BSD.
In GPL, the sourcecode is always free and any decendants/derivatives of that code is free. I can NOT restrict the freedom of the code.
In BSD, the users (be developers or end users) are free to do with the code what they want INCLUDING resticting the freedom of MODIFIED code.
These matters are at the core of the licences and I know which fredom I prefer (at least until we get AI:s capable enough to be considered alive and individuals).
Fact is, I’ve wanted to reuse some small bits of GPL code but since any code I’ve made have to be GPL licensed too then that have not been an option. I’ve fought for my freedom (not in war but in other ways) and I will not let GPL take that away! If someone wants to take my BSD licensed code and do something proprietary with it then fine. It is their right to do so but at the same time MY freedom have not decreased one single bit nor is the code I originally created any less free. I can always take and extend that code to similar or better state. If noone will then it didn’t affect my freedom.
RMS is missing the big picture in so many ways that he just seems anal retentive at this point.
”
In the FSF world, software can never serve as a business differentiator, as said software would be available to everyone once distributed. I think software is a very valid business differentiator, and it would take much more than mere advocation from the FSF to convince me of the opposite.”
RHEL is a commercial but completely Free software so yes market differentiation even with free software is definitely possible through defaults, support, branding, services and what not
But still a bit harder to achieve then if the software itself would be the differentiation!
“So closed source software somehow prevents freedom of mind. Come on most people don’t want to look at your the code. They want a utility or some functionality. How it works is irrelevant. For those who feel they must have the source just don’t used closed source software. But don’t tell people there minds are not free because they enter into agreements with closed source companies for software which provides them with some functionality the need.”
Which person would be free if they had to enter a contract on their own mind’s capabilities? That is what EULAs do… they restrict you from doing certain things with the program. You can not copy it or modify it for yourself without legal consequences.
At the same time, they try to lock you in to their product line by making it incompatible with everything else, making it so that if you want to open your files you have spent years making, you have to continue to buy their product. That is a detrimental loss of freedom. If ancestors of mine want to open a file I spent time on, they might fine that they have to buy a program from the same regime I was locked in to. That puts a burcen on my children that they do not deserve. The gpl will guarentee that they will have the freedom to open files I make today.
We can go on and on with this, but the detrimental aspects of proprietary software are many.
“And please your implied freedom if it ever had its way would severly impede others rights to enter into agreements for closed source software.”
I do not put my idea of freedom onto anyone else, but that is exactly like saying that the constitution impedes the rights of those who want to be kept from having free speech by others. If only we could work in a clause that would allow to be able to willfully foreclose their free speech to a proprietary company, then we’d be on to something.
“But please explain which kinds of thought non-free software prevents and how our minds have lost freedom.”
The thought that I can do whatever I want with it on my own computer/mind… I can only use it as its proprietary owner’s intended.
The political dimension of GNU/GPL is all about exclusion. Free, as in Free Software, means that no one is excluded. If you are running an OS and cannot utilize the hardware fully due to propietary drivers you are not free to use you computer-which you paid for-as you otherwise would. If you are running Linux on a Peagsus motherboard and really wish to use the new Base(database) module of OOo 2.0 you are simply SOL-because there is no PPC/Linux Java Runtime Environemt.
Each and evertime you run into a problem with drivers on any alternate OS and find that it does not work correctly or does not fully support the functionality that said hardware provides you are being excluded, excluded from utilizing the hardware that you paid for. If the hardware interfaces were open no one would be excluded from implementing proper driver support, or excluded from having access to such support. We all face these kinds of issues regularly-I would love to by a PPC based Linux system-but the majority of my hardware is not and probably will not evr be supported on that platform and in some cases there are no existing alternatives.
If you have ever used Solaris, BEOS, SkyOS, Reactos, Syllable, eCOS, etc. you know these problems. If any part of the system, whether hardware or software, is dependendant on some piece of propietary software in order to fully function and the OS or platform(Sparc/PPC/ARM/x86 etc.) does not have support from that company that provides that propietary software you are simply SOL- and that my friends is an abridgement of your freedoms. One doesn’t have to be a genius to understand such.
Hating someone like RMS because he insists that it is wrong for people to be forced into utter dependency on propietary software is utterly assinine. Some here have argued that the GPL is only free to those who think according to the GPL-funny-if that was the case anyone who publicly criticized RMS would have to immediately forfeit all usgae rights to the code
The light jab at BSD which RMS took in the article is also easy to understand. The BSD lisensce does offer a great degeree of freedom including the freedom to deprive others of that fredom. RMS has stated repeatedly that the end-goal of GNU/GPL software is enabling/creating totally ie.%100 free systems for use by anybody and everybody.
Now if you have such a laudable end goal-one must find a way of ensuring that such remains the ultimate goal. If at any point along the way that software can be taken and made propietary-ie. utilitzed as a means to another end-an end which is incompatible with the ultimate goal of totally Free Software then that software does not support, and arguably works against, this goal. The GNU/GPL does guarantee the ultimate goal of unviersal access to all distributed software released under the GPL-any software released and distributed under the GPL is available to any and everyone including any and all changes to the source code. Noone is excluded from acessing the code and all of the changes that have been made to it by all of those people who have worked on the code. RMS does not *hate* BSD-thats pure silliness. It is, however, not RMS’s job to promote the BSD license.
The stance which RMS takes is absolutely %100 self-consistent and logical. You may not agree with the goal-fine, but to hate someone who does have such a goal is radically immature.
Some here have made claims about all of the open source software around prior to the GNU/GPL. The fact is and remains that the GNU/Linux system-ie. the kernel, the GNU toolchain and the resulting OS was the first completely self-hosting open source OS in the world. Prior to the GNU/GPL one was always utterly dependendant on some absolutely fundamental piece of propietary code.
RMS has stated publicly how he was affected by this- Unix was not open source at the time the GNU project came around and the BSD license did not yet exist. In order to create a self-hosting system he had to use a non-free OS(Unix).RMS and colleagues then started reverse engineering Unix to create a new system capable of running software written for Unix. They started by looking at each of the components required to build software-the compiler, the C libraries, libraries for managing and processing source code, etc.-ie. to make trully free software one needs to have a fully free toolchain and kernel-the GNU folks did the hard part-they wrote the toolchain.
Linus and colleagues then made a kernel using the toolchain that the GNU people had provided. The two of these things- the GNU toolchain and the Torvalds Kernel became what we know as Linux. At some point BSD adopted gcc (ie. a part of the GNU toolchain)- I am not sure when the BSD guys actually started complete open source self-hosting-but prior to their adoption of gcc BSD was not a fully open source self-hosting environment.
But then again many people here seem to continuously confuse public domain source code with open source. Public domain software, aside from the fact that the concept of public domain is something very specific to anglo-american juducial tradition and specifically does not exist in most other cultures, is the anti-thesis of free and open source software. Public domain software belongs to noone. FOSS belongs to everyone.
This confusing of the GPL with public domain is pre-programmed. The notion that something can be licensced in such a way that this license itself cannot be bought or sold contradicts, in it’s very roots, what licensces have always traditionally meant. The price of the GPL is priceless -and the free software community will stand forever in debt to the brilliance of this licensce. Those who confuse this issue cannot really grasp the incredibly subtle, yet profoundly deep difference between the GPL and public domain/propietary IP.
Understanding this difference means relinquishing the defining opposite self-definition of IP. IP has always defined itself through it’s opposition to it’s other(andere)- public domain. The two notions need each other and exist for each other’s benefit. The temporary evil of IP find’s it’s absolution in the eventual transition to public domain. The defered time, the temporary evil-to-be-covercome, constitutes the horizon of the economy of relative value which is traded in the IP system.
The GPL is never public domain and is never to be bought or sold-it is a-economic in the strictest sense of the word.
What people who champion propietary software and/or public domain software don’t realize is that all of the problems of compatibility, exhangability and interoperatibilty are created by this IP regime to begin with. Only when one sees that these issues are contrived issues, issued which have no technical merit, and are issues which themselves promote and prolong their own very being, does one begin to see how self-serving the IP regime really is.
RMS is definitely eccentric and far too idealistic for most people. A healthy dose of humour is required to understand RMS-and those who hate him are wrapped up in resentment over the loss of relative value of propietary software. One can hate RMS for having started the changes which lead to a devaluation of propietary software-but this change has already transpired and no amount of hatred towards RMS is going to bring the not-so-good-ole-days of propietary software back.
Speaking of hardware support, especially the linux kernel hackers make it not too easy (some could say very hard) for hardware vendors to support linux – unless they release their driver under the GPL of course, and then it is still a full time job keeping up with the changes in the kernel …
If it wouldn’t be like this, hw vendors that want to could supply the drivers, the linux kernel hackers would have more time concentrating on other things (and hardware created by hw vendors who don’t care about linux support at all – let it be closed or open source drivers), and as a result cover more hardware better.
But that way is closed because of the license already, perhaps it might be a bit misplaced on the kernel then!
“Now see… I view the GPL differently… To me, its like a law that says “You shall not use speech to interefere with someone’s else speech irregardless of the reason.” Or in other words… You would be unable to make laws that prevent people from yelling “fire” in a crowded theater when there isn’t a fire because their right to free speech is absolute and may not be violated.”
Actually, the gpl is basically the law as it applies to free speech, and is that it must be free for all, but respect the freedom of others in that you can’t cause a situation where the freedom of others is taken away.
The point of the gpl is that you can’t take the freedom of other’s away. That is the only proviso.
“Whereas… BSD is something that states “You shall use speech for whatever in the world you want.” Or in other words you can use it to craft said laws. Of course, you can also use it to craft laws to keep people from disagreeing with you or doing any number of other things.”
The only thing that defends is the right of others to cause a situation where the freedom of others is threatened or taken away. That is the only thing the BSD does differently. Constitutional law has proven that the proviso of “fire in a crowded theater” is not protected speech, and free speech itself embodies that proviso. The gpl does the exact same. The gpl is exactly like the first amendment, except that it makes the proviso very clear.
“I honestly don’t completely agree with either point of view. I think speech can be used in a negative manner and so it should be restricted and so I cannot support allowing anyone to use speech however they like.”
??? That’s an odd thing to say, coming from the position you are supporting.
“By extension… I also do not feel that free software is nessecarily that best choice in ALL situations and as a result I cannot support that either. I personally believe that software is a more complicated issue than alot of people make it out to be.”
Well, the customizability factor guarentees that it could become the best choice for your situation. You might have to hire someone to make it what you want for you. But if you are determined, it could be the best choice in all situations. That might not seem practical to some people now, but in the future, as gpl software grows and grows, it will seem more practical by the day.
“BSD does not even remotely solve said problem, but it doesn’t pretend to either. To me, it’s like “abstaining”.”
But it doesn’t abstain, it enables monopolies. It is not quite a moral high ground, especially if you consider the gunmaker examples hmmmm and I discussed before.
“To me the problem remains unresolved no matter how people may pretend that the GPL solves it. At the moment I prefer BSD, because of it’s “absolute freedom”. Why? because when a solution does come it will be able to make use of the BSD code, but it WON’T be able to make use of the GPL code, I’m certain of this because of the restrictions placed on the GPL.”
Again, the only, and I mean only restriction of the gpl is that it can’t be made non-free when you distribute it to others. You can’t deprive others of the same freedom you yourself received when you received the code. If you don’t respect the freedom of others, then you should certainly not use the gpl, just as it has been proven in court that you can’t use the constitution if you want to yell fire in a crowded theater in which there is no fire. That same restriction is in our very own constitution as I explained before. This is why no one has a monopoly on speech, and is also why I believe no one should have a monopoly on code.
In that light, the gpl is the solution, because it basically echoes the constitution.
Good stuff Karl, and on target.
The most beautiful part of the gpl is that it is tied to copyright law. Why? Well since congress is continually lobbied and handled by monopolistic powers, congress always legislates a longer length of protection for any copyright protected work, such as Mickey Mouse.
That is a funny concept, in that monopolistic powers that are trying to extend their power at the same time extend the strength of the gpl far into the future.
It gets its strength from the very mechanisms which the monopolies it attacks abuse against the freedom of the people.
That is probably the deepest subtlety of that license. The greed of the companies whom the gpl undermines are what will give the gpl everlasting strength.
Wow, what emotional reactions. Anyway, Stallman is a really cool and consistent dude and I support what he’s saying. That free speech/beer parable is hardly digestable by non-english speakers and I don’t think all of this really has much to do with freedoms anyway.
Those raised in democratic counties are poorly educated in economics and politics. Well, what can I say – you have all you need – freedom. But who gave you freedom, country or god? It must have been somebody who first took that freedom away from you because you didn’t sign anything when you were born.
Basically, it’s not about freedom but about work and it’s value. Everything you do has a value, at least to yourself. Now why would anybody share value with others without return? Yes, you do things “for free” but this expression is just a shortcut for “I’ll do this gladly as I expect a return from the society you’re part of”. Giving value for nothing is an inhumane destructive behaviour, and anti-social too, as zombies are nothing but burden to society.
I hope it sheds some light on why BSD-style licenses are good for exclusive government projects and everybody doing his work at home “for free” should use GPL. And stuff like that…
If I write software, and decide not to “sell licences”, but to make it available free for everyone, and if I want to make sure it will stay free after, for example, I stop developig it, or if it is a small contribution of code to another project, there is just no way to achieve this better than with the GPL.
BSD is for thsse of you who “just dont care”. Its your right to not care what happens to your code, after you publish it once, even if this means that at some point of time, your own software could be available only under a changed, proprietary licence for the users.
What the GPL does, is simply to _ensure_ the basic freedoms for all of your future users, as long as there is a need for this code, and as long it is developed.
When I write something, licence it under the BSD licence, but have no means and resources to, say, ensure the availability of this BSD licenced product for more than 3-4 years, what could stop _all_ of my distributors to just change my licence and to close up my software, making it practically “dissappear” from the free software surface for anyone who needs it? Nothing, you say? Rrrright.
If you “just dont care, just dont give a fuck”, then go on praising your bsd. I on the other side _do_ care that free stays free, and choose the GPL.
Nope, the flash players are free in the rational definition of the word.
You mean Free free, or just free?
I would love to run Macromedia Flash player and authoring-package on my LinuxPPC machine, for example, so if you could give me a pointer to that Free version that’d be awesome.
Yes, but choosing GPL over LGPL smells more like cynicism and not freedom.
Traditionally the word “freedom” has been about rights: to speak freely, practice religious beliefs, etc. Limitations (e.g. laws against libel) are regarded as just that, as opposed to an intrinsic part of the freedom itself. Stallman’s use of the word “freedom” encompasses both rights and responsibilities. These responsibilities are active, as opposed to the passive limitations of free speech (better stay away from kiddie porn). If you want to redistribute the software you must agree to be part of the cooperative project in which you will make your modifications available. This is what makes his usage confusing, something that he has to explain anew at the beginning of nearly every speech and interview he gives.
I don’t agree with him that the BSD license restricts freedom, except in the sense that it is more restrictive than software placed in the public domain. It’s true that we don’t have access to the Windows TCP/IP stack which was apparently derived from UCB’s; however, we still have unfettered access to the original Berkeley code. We simply lack access to the mods made by Microsoft. Put it another way, the BSD license puts the onus on the user to decide whether to make the source of their derived works available to other users. This is a true measure of freedom: it doesn’t dictate active behavior, but allows the user to decide and manage for herself.
The phrase “community software” would be a much better fit for what the GPL provides and mandates.
I’m sure that the people in North Korea truly believe that they are living in a democratic society, since it is, after all, called the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
Freedom means being able to operate unrestricted.
Limited Freedom means being able to operate with some restrictions.
do not confuse or substitute them.
Get a clue?
fool what are you talking about?
Auswitz was a jail/killing facility, what does that have to do with freedom reguarding software?
obviously you misunderstood my point.
The DPRK, although throws the word Democratic around, is completely undemocratic. My point was that the BSD licenses were absolutely free in everyway. The GPL licenses (including LGPL) are not (they have restrictions.) The elections held in N. Korea are not truly “democratic”, even though the country’s title includes it.
I am not a supporter of fascism as a political or economic system.
How can someone argue, at all, that the BSD license is not as free as the GPL one?
If you’re giving away something free and a big business decides to tack on a few things to it and call it their own, hey you gave it away free, you’re not being exploited because you knew and accepted what could happen.
I’m curious, what do the people who love nothing but the GPL do for a living?
That is fascism… supporting monopolies with free work is fascism… or dictatorship communism at best.
Complete freedom means things like dictatorships and monopolies can be formed because there is no protection of the freedom of the people.
For this very reason we have a governmental system of checks and balances based on a Constitution of guarenteed freedoms.
We don’t have some piece of paper that says absolute freedom. We have laws that regulate freedom which which respects freedom of all.
If we had complete freedom, then you could kill anyone you wanted, steal anything you wanted, destroy anything you wanted.
That would be the result of “absolute freedom”, and is why I compare it to the Dictatorship communism and fascist Nazi viewpoints you are spouting.
You are a supporter of governments like North Koreas forming, you’re just far too dense to realize it.
If you don’t understand what I wrote, then you don’t understand the gpl or the bsd.
BSD work is public domain, is it not? doesn’t that make it inherently unpatentable, especially since, as long as the original free work exists, prior art exists nulling any patent claim?
That is fascism… supporting monopolies with free work is fascism… or dictatorship communism at best.
kindly look up the definitions of both facism and communism before quoting. I completely DO understand the BSD and GPL.
The laws are a restriction of freedom to argue otherwise is nonsense. No law can make you free.
Laws are set to PROTECT people from having their rights infringed (except for the rediculous “Freedom Fries” bill passed by congress.)
So instead of claiming FREE why doesn’t the GPL claim PROTECTION FOR AUTHOR OF ORIGINAL WORK. It certianly makes more sense to me. The author’s work cannot be exploited for commercial use because the economic incentive of selling the software is gone, why sell it if others can get it for free, and any changes you make must not only be freely distributed and published, but must be given back to the author at no charge so that he may benefit as well. In theory, I believe it’s great, all users benefit and all programmers benefit because they get to see the new code added. But there is no real commercial value of the software, selling it then becomes pointless.
All I’m arguing is that it shouldn’t be called free because that is misleading to everyone except those who are familiar with your LIMITED freedom definition.
PS the latest school shooting was performed by a kid who stole his grandfather’s police issued weapons. There’s a lot to blame in that case being that you could blame the Grandfather, the gun maker, the kids at school that drove him to murder, the kid himself, the school for not having better security, the school administration for not having bullet-proof and lockable class room doors.
I don’t blame gun manufacturers for gun murders, I blame individuals, no one told them to blow away the liquor store clerk.
BSD advocates say that the GPL takes away your freedom to use others’ code in your non-GPL project.
But then why not release your code in the public domain?
Because you want to take away others’ freedom to take your name off that code.
How is that so different from wanting to take away others’ freedom to make that code closed source?
It still limits the absolute freedom of any user. So both licenses have restrictions on freedom. Far less restrictions than any other license, but all software licenses take away freedom.
The difference is the GPL does it to ensure that that source code will be available.
earth to Yawn: All societies/governments stand on the backs of individuals to maintain their power, it’s not invented by capitalists, it’s invented by emperors and pharohs.
The only restriction for the BSD license is that the original author does not give a warranty with his code.
Why not give out the source? it’s up to the author of the derivative work, maybe he just needed a custom application, maybe not. Maybe he doesn’t want to mail out CDRs or give up bandwidth.
Doesn’t the GPL only require you to give the source out once you’ve distributed your derivative software?
RE: AQ
> The point of the gpl is that you can’t take the freedom of
> other’s away. That is the only proviso.
I think we had such a discussion before, but I still don’t understand this. To me it seems much more like the BSDL ensures that you can’t take freedom away, while the GPL tries to create *additional* freedom. Or, in other words, the BSDL takes away the freedom to take freedom away, while the GPL takes away the freedom not to give freedom in the first place.
Let’s look at MS taking BSD’s network stack. They surely made changes to the code, at least to make it work with Windows. Under the BSD license, MS was not forced to publish its modifications. Neither was it forced to release the original code, but the original code is still part of the BSD project. Any freedom that existed before also existed later.
If the code was published under the GPL on the other hand, not only would the existing freedom be ensured but the *additional* freedom to get the modified MS code would have been *created*. (By taking away MS’s freedom NOT to release the code – one’s freedom ends whether other’s freedom begins).
This is not intended as advocacy for either license, but I think one should be clear about one’s goals when choosing a license.
“The laws are a restriction of freedom to argue otherwise is nonsense. No law can make you free.
Laws are set to PROTECT people from having their rights infringed (except for the rediculous “Freedom Fries” bill passed by congress.)”
Actually, the constitution does guarantee protection for certain fredoms, which I have said all along. The GPL does the exact same.
What you are ignoring is that there are laws which legislate against you commiting certain actions, such as murder, or theft. In a world of complete freedom… those would be ignored.
“So instead of claiming FREE why doesn’t the GPL claim PROTECTION FOR AUTHOR OF ORIGINAL WORK. It certianly makes more sense to me. The author’s work cannot be exploited for commercial use because the economic incentive of selling the software is gone”
People sell GPL software everyday. It is a different type of economy that is based on competition, not on the creation of uncontrollable monopolies which suffocate the market, like dictators suffocate dissent.
“why sell it if others can get it for free, and any changes you make must not only be freely distributed and published, but must be given back to the author at no charge so that he may benefit as well.”
No, you don’t have to distribute your changes, if you choose to distribute the changes, they must be distributed with freedom.
“In theory, I believe it’s great, all users benefit and all programmers benefit because they get to see the new code added. But there is no real commercial value of the software, selling it then becomes pointless.”
There actually is commercial value, as it can be customized by anyone you want to. Just like you can pay someone to customize your car with the latest rims and paint job, or convert your van into a camper.
“All I’m arguing is that it shouldn’t be called free because that is misleading to everyone except those who are familiar with your LIMITED freedom definition.”
Actually, if I have the freedom to modify my own van, and have the freedom to fix it if it breaks down, or can pay someone to fix it… then that is freedom. If you can’t sell me something without guarenteeing me the same freedom for it, then what sort of freedom is that?
“PS the latest school shooting was performed by a kid who stole his grandfather’s police issued weapons. There’s a lot to blame in that case being that you could blame the Grandfather, the gun maker, the kids at school that drove him to murder, the kid himself, the school for not having better security, the school administration for not having bullet-proof and lockable class room doors.
I don’t blame gun manufacturers for gun murders, I blame individuals, no one told them to blow away the liquor store clerk.”
Ah, but this isn’t about blame, this is about what gunmaking causes. If the gun wasn’t there, we wouldn’t be seeing the school shootings end in mass graves. Thank goodness the assault weapons ban was lifted so you can further defend the poor gunmaker who will have given the freedom of assualt weaponry so that 50 would die instead of 10.
There really isn’t much else to say to you because you clearly don’t understand that the gpl echoes the constitution. If you don’t like the constitution then let me know, I could save my typing fingers for something more worthwhile.
I think I’ve covered that very issue to death in this thread, and if fact I’ve gone hyper-political on the ?-person.
For your example, you have to keep in mind that MS is a convicted monopoly, and they had been given something for free which they could make non-free.
The fact that you enable the non-free use of your own work, which is used against those who don’t know where the source is, or how to use what they find at the source is the ethical issue in question.
On top of that you actively enable a monopoly… keep in mind that a monopoly is like a dictatorship over a certain area, using its power to legislate against the people (DMCA and patents). Giving anything to this monopoly power is the same a supporting a dictator.
What you have to think is, why would I give more power and abilities to a dictator? Because dictators deserve freedom too, and not just freedom, but absolute freedom?
In the end, that benefits people at the very top of the chain which have most of the resources the most, and gives them more power. It would be like a gunmaker who’s giving away free guns to anyone who asks. If the military came up in their tank with 20 guns on it already, would you give them more guns? And if you gave them more guns, wouldn’t that guarentee them an edge as you’ve increased their power.
Yes, you gave guns to some poor people to, but you increased the power of the military, which had exponentially greater power to begin with.
Again, why give something with absolute freedom to a dictator?
I don’t find that altruistic in the least, all you’ve done is increased the power of one who is enslaving others.
The kid stole his grandfather’s police issued weapons.
I certainly don’t blame the police for having guns because criminals can obtain them illegally (and from other countries.)
Also that court clerk got beatup and shot by that dude who killed the judge, customs agent, another court clerk, etc, I don’t blame her either.
Perhaps the court system there needs better guards or, needs weapons to incapacitate, like a stun gun, rather than pistols–3M is working on some kind of a super glue gun.
I dunno, I don’t write software for a living, and any useful work I create would be released public domain anyway, no I don’t care if a company incorporates it, because I don’t have the means to support it to meet the needs of other users.
Once reconfigurable computing is mainstream, and free / open hardware becomes a huge issue, we’ll see what happens.
“RHEL is a commercial but completely Free software so yes market differentiation even with free software is definitely possible through defaults, support, branding, services and what not”
I would counter that in the case of commercial Linux distributions, the differentiator is not the software, but the services, branding and support. You cannot say “I have a competitive advantage over X because I provide software Y”, when Y is free software.
I isn’t that I’m inherently anti-gun… the point I was making is that making guns enables the worst among us with certain power over others (those without guns).
Of course we are talking about software here, and it really is in its infancy compared to the issue of guns. I honestly believe in the constitutional right to bear arms as a modicum of protection against the government. But I believe the world would be far greater without them. The GPL is basically just like the right to bear arms, in that you have some sort of protection against the development of a monopoly power, or dictatorship, through competition. Which is what the right to bear arms actually does, it allows you to compete against the government.
It really is unfortunate how they are used, and the example was more about how people are enabled with power. We don’t enable people who are felons to buy guns (I believe). The BSD basically says that the felons also deserve the freedom of owning a gun.
Under your own earlier reasoning, that the GPL makes its freedom available to everyone at all times,
the GPL would be the one allowing felons to own a gun.
Actually it would be more like expressly having gun stores open at all times… with express orders to allow anyone to be able to buy guns at any time , without regard to whether they were dictator, a hoodlum, an honest citizen, a mercenary, a government official, or whatever.
I see your point, but still would release my software as public domain.
“Under your own earlier reasoning, that the GPL makes its freedom available to everyone at all times,
the GPL would be the one allowing felons to own a gun.
Actually it would be more like expressly having gun stores open at all times… with express orders to allow anyone to be able to buy guns at any time , without regard to whether they were dictator, a hoodlum, an honest citizen, a mercenary, a government official, or whatever.”
Actually the point of view I was coming from was that allowing a felon to own a gun (which they can do whatever they want with) does not respect the freedom of others. In the respect it is entirely consistent with what I wrote earlier. The idea that the proviso of the gpl is the respect of the freedom of others.
I’m beginning to wish I hadn’t, though since this is bound to become a mess before too long. It is true that the gpl does not discriminate, but it gives people greater equal powers than bsd in that yes, the gpl could help a monopoly, up until the point where they redistributed it, at which point this would undermine monopoliptic power over time.
It is important to realize that we are using the gpl as a competitive mechanism against monopolistic powers, in effort to whittle down their strength and make them competitive, and not more monopolistic.
And that’s fine, I was just pointing out that the free software movement is a mechanism of opposition to dictatorship communism and monopolies. And is based completely on the Constitution, so it wouldn’t be right to compare it with North Korea.
It’s strange when the same companies that sell to the US, also want to get into China to help them with their software needs like tracking all internet of dissidents and preventing dissent posts / websites etc.
Nothing like technology enabling the big brother…
“Nothing like technology enabling the big brother…”
Rather, nothing like excessively-profit-driven technology enabling the big brother!
That’s why ethics is so important, not only in the free software movement, but in everyday life, in general.
Greed for money is, IMHO, a betrayal of the potential of technology: we could very well use technology and science towards humanity-enhancing goals, but too often use them to destroy ourselves and others.
At least, Stallman, with his idealism, tries to show people better ways of living and behaving – not only on the software front, but also in political and social issues (see his personal website, for example).
Then, he’s not the only one, of course…
Both BSD and GPL license are great. Be happy that Linux is not release under a license like Microsoft’s EULA.
I do not agree with your position that the GPL is “based completely on the constitution”, but I see your point that there is a parallel.
I also agree that the GPL can not be compared to North Korea. It is nothing like that. Just because I disagree with the GPL on certain details does not mean I consider it evil.
I do, however, feel it is misguided.
[quote]
At least, Stallman, with his idealism, tries to show people better ways of living and behaving – not only on the software front, but also in political and social issues (see his personal website, for example).
[end quote]
I agree with this. I believe Richard Stallman does fight for what he believes in, and while I personally disagree with his conclusions on many matters, I DO respect him very much, and think that the world is a better place for having him, and those like him, in it.
>”I was just pointing out that the free software movement is a mechanism of opposition to dictatorship communism and monopolies.”
By that definition of yours GPL is not the free software movement, because government of China (dictatorship communism) and almost convicted monopolist IBM are more than happy to embrace and support it.
Usually, communists are not supportive of their opponents, believe me, I know. So, GPL must be doing something dictatorships like very much.
I believe it was Mao who said the capitalists will sell us the nails to build their coffins.
There’s an awful lot of truth to that when companies can’t get into china fast enough to sell them everything.
One doesn’t need analogies to explain the political issues involved in the GPL. If you have ever run an alternative Operating System and/or used an alternate CPU platform you have been bitten by the political sense of ‘exclusion’, for which the GPL was created,-you hardware is not supported at all or severely lacking, the functionality you paid for is locked up inside of the device and is only usable within the constraints of Microsoft/x86.
Personally I, like Richard Stallman, use GPL and BSD licensced software everday. In fact there is no Linux distribution in existence which does not incorporate BSD licensed code. Just as there are no BSD users who are not using some GPL’ed code. And each and every BSD and Linux user has been confronted by the political dimension of software licensing-mostly by being excluded, excluded from fully utilizing the functionality of those products which we have ourselves purchased and paid for.
We can all stick our heads in the sand and pretend that this is not an issue. We can all rationalize why it is that companies fail to provide us with the needed support to fully utilize the hardware we have purchased. The concept of political is the dimension of ‘others’, to which we, as individuals, also belong. Some people stick their head in the sand wishing to not deal with the reality of others, at least until they find themselves in the position of being the other. Others are inspired to champion new paradigms of inclusivity thus redefining traditional exclusionary practices of propietary licensing, which in that it excludes others, *is* political. Granted this is more an issue for some people and less for others.
Those who lambast RMS and the decry any political issues involved in the use of software only reveal their utter lack uf understanding regarding what political means. The reification of the relationships in which were all bound and which effect each and everyone of us can only be negated by selectively choosing to not be cognizant of the relations in which we find ourselves. Instead of addressing thes issues and working together to find answers many insist on potraying everything as being ideological-even going so far as to equate genuine interest in the body politic as itself being ideological.
These same people, however, are so engrossed within an atomic invidiualistic ideology that they perpetually reify the fact that they live amongst others and that their actions and inaction have direct repurcusions for the nameless masses amongst whom we exist. One cannot particpate in propietary markets without engaging in exclusion and being excluded. That such exclusion and being excluded is not necessary and in fact utterly contrived is what has become apparent with the success of FOSS.
FOSS has rendered the hypocrisy and cynicism inherit in propietary markets plainly visisble. Smalltime self-employed software developers routinely identify themselves with the absurdly large scale corporate behemoths which influence our societies so profoundly. Ostensibly they seem to be doing the same things, so it appears as if such identification was natural.
But people fail to grasp the totality-if the software we used was open source and the formats with which we exchange data were transparent and the hardware we use was openly documented noone would have a problem with individuals and small companies engaging in propietary software development. Then it would simply be a matter of choice. But the reality is most software being used is not open source, most of our data formats are not transparent and there is scarecly hardware available with open documentation. In such a situation we have extremely little choice, each and everyone of us exists in a situation where our freedoms are delimited and most developers work in enviroments where their work is simply make-work-work done to get around the contrived barriers which permeate our data solely for the purpose of sustaining self-serving propietary products.
Arguably this make-work has created niches of economic activity which form the basis of employment of many, many people. But it is a function of delimited imagination that people argue that such is the only way one can make a living producing software. Massive corporate behemoths only exist as such due to demand for defacto standards, Microsoft primarily exists in order to fill a need for a kind of software infrastructure, forming the basis of a platform which it utilitzed by countless thousands of others for developing marketing their wares.
FOSS is slowly but surely surplanting this propietary infrastructure, and this is proceeding for the most part in the realm of public institutions and beauracracies. It is one thing when I choose to take my hard earned money and invest it in a piece of software and another thing when my tax dollars are taken to underwrite massive corporate behemoths. One of these days someone brilliant will explain to me adequately the rationale behind our public institituons underwriting propietary firms. But there is no explantion which can provide sufficient justification for the continous misappropriation of public funds for the underwriting of the propietary corporations.
One of the oldest ideas in the anglo american tradition is the idea of the commonwealth. In fact this idea is so old it predates the arrival of roman law in the colonies of the roman empire, it predates any modern understanding of democracy or ‘free market’. Part of this idea is that certain things, upon which we all are dependant, are simply not for sale due to our dependendancy. This same concept is echoed in the notion of ‘inalienable rights’.
Our public institutions for good or bad form the basis of the soiety in which we live and we as a society we are utterly dependent upon such institutions to maintain a degree of what we call civility-without such insitutions there would be no society-these institutions embody shared values, values which define the society. These public institutions are computerized and the services that they offer which we as citizens utilize are facilitated though the use of software.
As citizens we have the right to demand a degree of transparency in how the data which is collected is put to use-from whether or not DNS samples are permanently archived by law enforcement institutions to the format of the documents that are used in inter-instituion data exchange to the software utilitzed in our schools and universities. The GPL is unique in that it was the first license which itself was not subject to licensing, the GPL is simply not for sale. It seems more than appropriate to me that software which forms the communication infrastructure of our public institutions should be based on software which itself is not for sale, for it is in everyones interest.
FOSS has proven that the production/development of software is not dependent on the propietary market mechanisms- corporations are participating in these developments and for the first time ever the coworkers of corporations are actually cooperating and sharing with the employess of their competition. By demanding open standards in the data formats with which we exchange and share data helps to negate the inavoidable public underwriting of the industrial costs of hardware production-to the extent that the software in use by our public institutions is FOSS we can brake the artificial hegemony of particular hardware platforms-which of course enables competition. These steps are necessary if we ever want to be able to actually engage in choosing, ie. where our choice, itself makes a difference.
>”I was just pointing out that the free software movement is a mechanism of opposition to dictatorship communism and monopolies.”
“because government of China (dictatorship communism)”
The free software distributed in China, the better, as long as they obey the proviso of respecting the freedom of others when distributing code.
I am not Catholic, but as the pope is in his last days apparently, many are remembering how he convinced Gorbachev of the importance of the freedom of religion. This had a great effect on the fall of communism in Russia.
It is ideals of freedom.
Now if some of the people on the street of China can get source code and linux, they have an infinitely greater chance of taking freedom in their own hands. The more they use that freedom, the more comfortable they’ll become with wanting freedom and organizing for it.
“and almost convicted monopolist IBM are more than happy to embrace and support it.”
You either are a convicted monopolist or you are not. IBM is not a convicted monopolist. You can’t “almost be something”. On top of that, IBM has released many patents for use in free software, as well as has released the source of many of their own projects on sourceforge recently. They have opened themselves to competition.
“Usually, communists are not supportive of their opponents, believe me, I know. So, GPL must be doing something dictatorships like very much.”
From that viewpoint, what doesn’t benefit communists? Microsoft benefitted China. Businesses the world over have benefitted China. At the very least, the gpl puts a proviso of freedom on any code they distribute… and that could eventually help in the fall of the dictaorship.
It is actually stupid for China to use the software, because if anyone understands the freedom it entails, they might want that same freedom.
But you should go back to your illegal copy of Windows where you don’t worry yourself with these things.
“But it is a function of delimited imagination that people argue that such is the only way one can make a living producing software.”
No I believe it is a function of market demand. Inventing a new market to produce for is an extremely difficult task for a 1 man operation. Using your wild imagination, can you create another market for software?
“Smalltime self-employed software developers routinely identify themselves with the absurdly large scale corporate behemoths which influence our societies so profoundly. Ostensibly they seem to be doing the same things, so it appears as if such identification was natural. ”
If you look at wild life, apes do this. Smaller ones try to be the loudest to gain more attention from potential mates. People who sell to a market want to be identified as “movers and shakers” to gain more market share.
“Those who lambast RMS and the decry any political issues involved in the use of software only reveal their utter lack uf understanding regarding what political means. The reification of the relationships in which were all bound and which effect each and everyone of us can only be negated by selectively choosing to not be cognizant of the relations in which we find ourselves. Instead of addressing thes issues and working together to find answers many insist on potraying everything as being ideological-even going so far as to equate genuine interest in the body politic as itself being ideological.”
I agree with you. F$ck the politics, there are problems that need solving.
>”The free software distributed in China, the better”
You do not get it, do you? China, the country that blocks its people from freely accessing the Internet, country with less freedoms than former Soviet Union, it embraces GPL software and forces it into governmental offices and on its citizens.
In my opinion, that makes GPL very much communist dictatorship friendly, which is opposite to any sane definition of freedom.
>”as the pope is in his last days apparently, many are remembering how he convinced Gorbachev of the importance of the freedom of religion. This had a great effect on the fall of communism in Russia.”
I don’t know even where to start. So I won’t. Pope was a great man, but what are you saying is incorrect 100%.
Like many other things you are saying…
>”From that viewpoint, what doesn’t benefit communists?”
A lot!
>”Microsoft benefitted China. Businesses the world over have benefitted China.”
Capitalist pigs will sell their mothers for 100% of profits. Marx was right about it. Who made you think I beleive Microsoft is a flagship of freedom? It is after money, like all capitalists. They never said otherwise.
But I would rather deal with honest pig than with dishonest weasel.
>”you don’t worry yourself with these things.”
I actually do. I have fed up with “freeedom of the people” in the Soviet Union for so many years that I can spot same doublespeak in other places. Even such holy places as GPL and its leader’s vision of the future.
[quote]
I usually don’t respond to dishonest swine that wouldn’t know feedom if it hit them in the face, but why not.
[end quote]
[quote]
Describe it, fool.
[end quote]
awwww, back to the insult tactic?
and here you were doing SO well!
[quote]
What bright idea do you have that would do better? Or would actually put a proviso on communist distatorships? GPL, if used in its legal sense, actually restricts a communist dictatorship.
[end quote]
[quote]
If they embrace the GPL, it will be their downfall.
[end quote]
I sincerely hope you are joking because there is absolutely no logical reasoning you could possibly use that would support statements like these.
The GPL’s legal validity lies with copyright law. A country’s government decides the law within its own borders. NO piece of paper written by a lawyer in one country is going to “restrict” a different country’s government in the way that you are trying to say. US copyright law (or British or French or etc etc etc) does not have force China any more than China’s has force in the US.
>”I usually don’t respond to dishonest swine…”
You sound like an extremely religious man who was shown that the Bible can not be taken literally, word by the word.
I know freedom and I know what is not to be free. Apparently you don’t, and can be easily fooled by shiny words and empty promises.
>”Describe it, fool.”
Careful with that. I would call a fool someone like you who does not know what does NOT benefit communist dictatorships and what communist dictatorships struggle to suppress any way they can.
>If they (communists) embrace the GPL, it will be their downfall.
They do, and it is not. Don’t you see it?
It is fools like you who believe that GPL will save the world and bring the freedom to the masses, while in reality you and your friends are just used by the greedy capitalist pigs (like IBM) and by the paranoid communist dogs (like China).
Not surprising neither of you could but up stronger alternatives and ignored the hard questions I had in my last post.
But I have to expect as much. When you can’t come up with answers, you are bound to ignore whichever part of my posts you want.
And hmmm, unless you were dreadfully blind, you would have noticed that the Russian called GPL advocates Weasels… you think I’m going to shake his dishonest hand after that?
Try to come back with substance to the real questions instead of trying to fight around the issue with nothingness.
(I got some time and came back to read the conclusion)
AQ: And hmmm, unless you were dreadfully blind, you would have noticed that the Russian called GPL advocates Weasels… you think I’m going to shake his dishonest hand after that?
Actually… Yes. The more you can keep your cool the more mature you appear. Also, it’s easier to make logical arguments that way and as result it is easier to actually “win”. Considering your generally “arrogant” attitude, I would expect better from you. When in fact, to me it looked like your response was worse than what he said. (I am not saying that I agreed with what he said and I felt it was… A tad insulting, but… Yours… Was worse.)
(Note: I don’t claim to be the best at this. But one should make an attempt.)
I could say more… But I won’t. I think this is actually enough.
Actually, AQ, I did not intend to argue any “point” that time. I am trying to get you to understand that spewing forth insults makes your arguments look weaker, not stronger, and accusing the other of stupidity generally reflects on you, not them. It makes you look immature. I wasn’t saying Russian Guy was right, or even taking his side.
And for you to accuse me of “fighting around the issue with nothingness” is a farce when you appear to have made an artform of this. I notice you seem to have refrained from comment on the objection I raised in that same post about your “restraining the dictatorship” argument.
Can you, at all, see how much more effective your arguments were during the time you weren’t insulting people left and right?
You have quite a bit of potential, but as long as you construct your arguments this way, you will be fighting with one arm tied behind your back.
[quote]
Again, what is not friendly to them? The Chinese government have embraced Walmart, they have embraced everything in their rush to capitalism. You can’t lay trash like that at the feet of the GPL
[end quote]
I agree with this.
[quote]
I am not Catholic, but as the pope is in his last days apparently, many are remembering how he convinced Gorbachev of the importance of the freedom of religion. This had a great effect on the fall of communism in Russia.
[end quote]
Yes, he played a large role in that. However, you cannot just discount factors like internal economic hardships, The inability to compete with the US when Reagan decided to put the pedal down, and Gorbachev’s own desire for better relations and more humane leadership style than his predecessors.
In other words: He did a lot, but he did not do it alone
[quote]
Then what is freedom to a Russian ignorant of freedom?
[end quote]
Who would know the true meaning of freedom better than one who once had none and then attained it?
[quote from Russian Guy]
“I actually do. I have fed up with “freeedom of the people” in the Soviet Union for so many years that I can spot same doublespeak in other places. Even such holy places as GPL and its leader’s vision of the future.”
[end quote from Russian Guy]
[quote from AQ]
Again, what is so free as not to help a communist dictatorship.
[end quote from AQ]
Freedom to be able to do as you wish and not be told what to do?
[quote]
The proviso of the gpl, if they actually accept it and enforce it, includes that they have to share the power of the code if they distribute it.
[end quote]
That is a BIG if! Look up the term sovereign nation.
Take a piece of paper, write down “China must accept democracy”. IF they choose to accept it, great change will occur! Would you suppose that is likely to happen?
I ignored the largest part of your post because part I agreed with, and the rest was too easy. Not because I “can’t come up with answers”.
As far as “hard questions” if you wish, I will attempt to answer them when you raise some. At the moment, it feels more like a game of little league slow pitch softball.
(Did you happen to notice how my post seemed strong until that last part, but then took a nosedive? Do you see that if I had left it off I would have appeared much more convincing?)