131–140 of 262 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What he's doing is leeching off of other peoples resources. A swap implies that he's letting other people use his phone, which he's not.
The GP said he's swapping the cards, not the phone use. He is using other peoples' resources without giving back with the phone use, I guess, but so what? I've let people borrow my phone before, and I don't really care if they've paid it back or not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You can't (technically) use GPL'd code inside your iOS application. Web startups don't generally build iOS apps, they build web apps. > GPL is not the greatest license, that's why they created LGPL (to remove some of its stupid restrictions) and even that wasn't enough... Enough for whom? Microsoft? I know it's hard to believe, but some people do not have "allow companies to benefit from my work without giving back…
The iOS example was just to name one of many limitations of using GPL code. > Enough for whom? Microsoft? No, for developers themselves. Dynamic vs. static linking mess etc. > ...some people do not have "allow companies to benefit from my work without giving back anything in return" as their top priority. But in reality, that doesn't happen a lot - to name a few on top of my head: Webkit, PostgreSQL, Minix, LaTeX, Mo…
Why do you consider this a limitation of GPL, rather than of iOS?
> No, for developers themselves. Dynamic vs. static linking mess etc.
Can you explain this? It is the nature of closed-source libraries that deny us the freedom to modify them to our own ends or link them into GPL applications.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why should you be allowed to take away the Freedoms of others? No one's freedom is being taken away when you create a proprietary fork. They are not forced to use your software, and the original is still intact. You do not automatically have a right to someone else's creation. I don't mind paying for software, and I don't mind if they don't let me see their code the same way I don't mind when my local restaurant do…
>No one's freedom is being taken away when you create a proprietary fork. You're free to make forks for your own personal usage and never give anyone the source. You don't even have to tell anyone that you did. As soon as you share that software with anyone and refuse to hand over the source, and deny the recipient the right to modify and/or redistribute your program, you are taking away that person's Freedom. >You d…
I'm not taking away anyone's freedom, unless "freedom" has some definition I'm not aware of. You might be confusing "freedom" with "right", but I'm not taking away any right either unless I specifically violate the license. You do not automatically have the right to someone's work.
> Then why do you insist on taking someone else's creation and basically make it your own by taking away the Freedoms granted to you by the original creator?
It's not a freedom if the original creator forces me to release my code. Do you see how someone forcing me to do something isn't a freedom?
> If find it highly unethical to want access to Free Software without having to actually contribute to it. It's demanding rights without wanting to have to deal with the responsibilities that come with those rights. It's selfish and greedy.
No where did I say a proprietary fork wouldn't contribute back. Merely it shouldn't be forced to open up its codebase. You can make a proprietary fork of a project and still contribute back. I would like the freedom to choose which parts I contribute.
> Except money's got nothing to do with Free Software. It's explicitly stated that you're allowed to charge for distributing copies. I'm sick and tired of this "argument". It pops up every time Free Software is discussed here and elsewhere, and the only thing it proves is that the person bringing it up has not understood what Free Software is about in the first place.
You've missed the other part of that paragraph— the part having to do with Free Software.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And how many of those things would be around if they weren't generating revenue for someone? He's a living, breathing demonstration of the limits of free software. A world where progress slows to a crawl because the only people who have the time to write code are hobbyists and people who can get paid to lecture about how everything should be free. That's the main issue I have with his ideas, they are thoroughly disco…
I think you are confusing free as in beer, and free as in speech. No one says you can't sell GPL software.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And I bet he is still waiting to find a laptop that his free and open to replace is yulong
He won't have to wait long. Yeeloong have a quad-core Loongson-3A 13.3" laptop on the way.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/spark-the-first-free-s...
You have to give the guy some credit; Stallman believes in the free software movement, fights for it, and refuses to compromise his rights or values.
Don't take this the wrong way but I personally feel that the GPL is not a free software license, I feel it's a community software license. BSD is a free software license, BSD code is truly yours, you want to create a proprietary fork you can do it, you want to create a GPLed fork you can do it, you want to expand the BSD code base you can do it. One thing I really love about BSD licensed code is that I feel like I ow…
You can draw a parallel to physical goods: everybody has the right to do whatever they want with whatever they've bought. However, this does not translate to being able to sell that thing to somebody else while restricting what that person can do with it. You do not have the right to restrict what people do with things you used to own.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does he have the same moral reservations for other devices in his life? ie; what car does he use and own? All (modern) cars accept software updates which is his definition of a computer. Most modern televisions, dvd players, routers and even some microwaves/refrigerators can take firmware updates also. Genuinely curious about the above - Not being a troll, just wondering how far the man really takes his beliefs. Does…
Does he have the same moral reservations for other devices in his life? Yes, as far as I know. ie; what car does he use and own? All (modern) cars accept software updates which is his definition of a computer. I am pretty sure he doesn't drive, but this is what he had to say on the topic: So, what about cars? Free cars would mean you are free to modify them and redistribute copies. Well, as for the modification, you…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't take this the wrong way but I personally feel that the GPL is not a free software license, I feel it's a community software license. BSD is a free software license, BSD code is truly yours, you want to create a proprietary fork you can do it, you want to create a GPLed fork you can do it, you want to expand the BSD code base you can do it. One thing I really love about BSD licensed code is that I feel like I ow…
It comes down to how to define "freedom" for free software. RMS's is a very pragmatic (and in my opinion counterintuitive) definition: it just means that no one can conceal the source code. It's counterintuitive to me, because I would consider the maximum freedom being akin to public domain software: anyone would be able to do literally whatever they want with the software, including redistributing it without distrib…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And how many of those things would be around if they weren't generating revenue for someone? He's a living, breathing demonstration of the limits of free software. A world where progress slows to a crawl because the only people who have the time to write code are hobbyists and people who can get paid to lecture about how everything should be free. That's the main issue I have with his ideas, they are thoroughly disco…
I think you are confusing free as in beer, and free as in speech. No one says you can't sell GPL software.
Software is either free or it's not free. It's either restricted or it's unrestricted. It's either proprietary or it's open.
Using hyper-capitalistic entities like Google and Facebook as a defense of the viability of free software is an interesting way to go. If anything, I'd argue they are almost perfect subversions of Free Software. Going a little deeper, a place like Y-Combinator is an even further subversion because, at it's core, it is a company that specifically exploits the profit motive of developers.
That aside, I think it's not particularly useful to argue that Stallman's contributions to the field are a vindication of his basic philosophy. Especially when those contributions are being used in a way that subverts it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does he have the same moral reservations for other devices in his life? Yes, as far as I know. ie; what car does he use and own? All (modern) cars accept software updates which is his definition of a computer. I am pretty sure he doesn't drive, but this is what he had to say on the topic: So, what about cars? Free cars would mean you are free to modify them and redistribute copies. Well, as for the modification, you…
In fact, to equate cars and computers in this manner is to commit a Category Error. They simply don't share very many properties (save that they are both sold for money). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake