I don't want my platform to restrict what software I can run, especially not based on license. Is there any mobile platform these days that doesn't try to be your nanny as well?
Mobile targetted websites?
Microsoft: No GPLv3 Software for Windows Phone and Xbox Apps.
81–90 of 134 posts
Re: Microsoft: No GPLv3 Software for Windows Phone and Xbox Apps.
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue here is you disagree with FSF over the meaning of the word free. Don't worry this is a common occurrence! To RMS free means freedom to use software without violating his "golden rule." RMS believes that if a neighbor wants to use software you are using you should be able to give it to him. Just as you would neighborly share flour or a rake. I am not going to debate RMSs ethical philosophy, I just want to po…
> If some wants to use it in proprietary software they cannot, because if they did they would be unable to then share it with their neighbor. So he isn't free to do what he wishes with the software. Free is one of the most overloaded words in the English language, and I know that at least some of the Free Software movement agrees due to the prevalence of libre software (as if switching to French somehow makes it more…
The switch to is arguably good because in French there are two words that map to the English free --- libre = free as in speech, gratis = free as in beer. So libre is less overloaded than free, making it less ambiguous.
Re: Microsoft: No GPLv3 Software for Windows Phone and Xbox Apps.
#83Looks like they're trying to preempt the whole "can you distribute GPLed programs via the app store" problem that Apple's been facing.
So it's the same as Apple then. "Can you distribute GPL?" "No."
Actually, it's better than Apple. Apple will let you distribute GPL'd applications until a takedown notice is issued even though doing so is illegal; Microsoft is clear about it up-front.
Re: Microsoft: No GPLv3 Software for Windows Phone and Xbox Apps.
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue here is you disagree with FSF over the meaning of the word free. Don't worry this is a common occurrence! To RMS free means freedom to use software without violating his "golden rule." RMS believes that if a neighbor wants to use software you are using you should be able to give it to him. Just as you would neighborly share flour or a rake. I am not going to debate RMSs ethical philosophy, I just want to po…
> If some wants to use it in proprietary software they cannot, because if they did they would be unable to then share it with their neighbor. So he isn't free to do what he wishes with the software. Free is one of the most overloaded words in the English language, and I know that at least some of the Free Software movement agrees due to the prevalence of libre software (as if switching to French somehow makes it more…
>> If some wants to use it in proprietary software they cannot, because if they did they would be unable to then share it with their neighbor.
> So he isn't free to do what he wishes with the software.
This is a common misconception with the GPL: you are actually allowed to use it together with proprietary software, including using it "in" proprietary software, as long as you use it, yourself. You just cannot distribute the combined software.
As a result, the GPL improves your freedom as a user, but may encroach on your value-added-reseller freedoms. This is per design - the GPL allows the original author(s) of the software to limit the value that other people who do not own it can derive from selling it.
This is something that is considered perfectly normal with other software - no one would expect to be able to use Microsoft Windows, or Oracle's database, in his proprietary software in the sense of "bundling it without giving Microsoft, or Oracle, anything in return".
Since we live in the real world, where freedoms of different people may be mutually exclusive, ensuring the freedom of the user in all possible cases means to limit the freedom of the value-added-reseller in some of the possible cases. Complaining about this is a bit like saying that public libraries are limiting your freedom because you cannot sell the books you borrow from them.
Re: Microsoft: No GPLv3 Software for Windows Phone and Xbox Apps.
#85It seems that the site is down
Re: Microsoft: No GPLv3 Software for Windows Phone and Xbox Apps.
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're probably just trolling, but it needs to be said every time: The freedom that the GPL takes away is the freedom to bring down the system. It keeps people in check and prevents corruption. If you enjoy the freedoms of MIT and BSD style licenses - why do you complain about the GPL? It seems that it only takes "freedoms" away that you don't appear to be interested in anyways?
Share-Alike licenses like the GNU GPL are excellent licenses and are worthy of consideration for whole categories of software. What they aren't , however, is 'free' by any rational or sane definition of the word. They impose restrictions -- and carry those restrictions downstream -- on the use of the software that increases the theoretical range of people who would do things with the software. But those restrictions…
So maybe it would be nice if they wrote up an essay somewhere detailing exactly what they mean by "freedom" so that no one gets confused. Maybe they could call it the "The Free Software Definition".
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
I'll leave aside the issue of whether or not this matches what you consider a "rational" or "sane" definition of "free" and just point out that it makes pretty good sense to me.
Re: Microsoft: No GPLv3 Software for Windows Phone and Xbox Apps.
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not going to comment on whether GPL style licenses actually have the effect of promoting freedom like they say, but I don't see at all how they take it away. An author is free to write code and distribute it under the GPL. Likewise anyone else is free to fork it, or use it in their own codebase so long as they honor the terms of the license . How does that take away anyone's freedom? Don't like the terms of an au…
> Don't like the terms of an author's library? Go write your own then. I really hate this attitude. Isn't one of the advantages of the Internet bringing developers together to work on things? Can't we put our collective capabilities toward improving things instead of rewriting them from scratch simply because they're not our favorite license or favorite language? Gnote springs to mind. Edit: Wow, three downvotes with…
> Isn't one of the advantages of the Internet bringing developers together to work on things? Can't we put our collective capabilities toward improving things instead of rewriting them from scratch simply because they're not our favorite license or favorite language?
Well, that is pretty much the purpose of GPL, isn't it. It sets up a co-operative rule: if you want to gain from GPL software, then you must give something back, and that is to let other people gain from your additions. It is better to co-operate, and GPL reifies that instinct into a legal form to give it a bit more strength.
Re: Microsoft: No GPLv3 Software for Windows Phone and Xbox Apps.
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. Also GPL style licenses are a virus that while they promote freedom, in reality they take it away. It assumes that people are naturally untrustworthy and thus forces them to act in a way the creators of GPL see as the right way. Because of how the GPL licenses are worded, especially insane versions like the AGPL, everything they touch may be affected negatively. MIT and BSD style licenses on the other hand a…
I'm not going to comment on whether GPL style licenses actually have the effect of promoting freedom like they say, but I don't see at all how they take it away. An author is free to write code and distribute it under the GPL. Likewise anyone else is free to fork it, or use it in their own codebase so long as they honor the terms of the license . How does that take away anyone's freedom? Don't like the terms of an au…
How is that any more free than closed-source, proprietary software? You could just as easily say, "Don't like the terms of Photoshop's license? Go write your own then!" And unlike a GPL software vendor, Adobe couldn't turn around and sue you for creating a derivative work (because your brain hasn't been infected by any virally licensed source code).
Anyway, the question of freedom between GPL and BSD is this: Does freedom include the ability to place restrictions on other people? The GPL tries to maximize freedom for everyone at the expense of freedom for each individual (the range of things you can do with GPL software is less than with BSD), while BSD allows the licensee almost total freedom to do what he wants, but doesn't guarantee that the freedom will be spread to others. It's kind of a quantity vs. quality thing.
Re: Microsoft: No GPLv3 Software for Windows Phone and Xbox Apps.
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not going to comment on whether GPL style licenses actually have the effect of promoting freedom like they say, but I don't see at all how they take it away. An author is free to write code and distribute it under the GPL. Likewise anyone else is free to fork it, or use it in their own codebase so long as they honor the terms of the license . How does that take away anyone's freedom? Don't like the terms of an au…
> Don't like the terms of an author's library? Go write your own then. I really hate this attitude. Isn't one of the advantages of the Internet bringing developers together to work on things? Can't we put our collective capabilities toward improving things instead of rewriting them from scratch simply because they're not our favorite license or favorite language? Gnote springs to mind. Edit: Wow, three downvotes with…
Ok, let's contrast several options and see where the freedom lies:
First, the GPL software. It's copyrighted, but you can use it in spite of that if you follow the rules of the GPL. If not, then you have to obey copyright law.
Second, proprietary software. This is copyrighted, and when you use it you usually have to agree to a contract and pay money for it. If you don't follow the contract, then it's copyrighted and you can't use it.
Third, you write the software yourself. Well, you wrote it. It's copyrighted, but since YOU own the copyright, you get to decide what you use it in! The best, most free deal of them all, right?
Basically if you don't like dealing with other people owning the copyrights, the ONLY option is to make it yourself.
Re: Microsoft: No GPLv3 Software for Windows Phone and Xbox Apps.
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not going to comment on whether GPL style licenses actually have the effect of promoting freedom like they say, but I don't see at all how they take it away. An author is free to write code and distribute it under the GPL. Likewise anyone else is free to fork it, or use it in their own codebase so long as they honor the terms of the license . How does that take away anyone's freedom? Don't like the terms of an au…
How is that any more free than closed-source, proprietary software? You could just as easily say, "Don't like the terms of Photoshop's license? Go write your own then!" And unlike a GPL software vendor, Adobe couldn't turn around and sue you for creating a derivative work (because your brain hasn't been infected by any virally licensed source code). Anyway, the question of freedom between GPL and BSD is this: Does fr…
I didn't say the GPL increased freedom. Only that it doesn't decrease it.