121–130 of 192 posts
Yeah, let's fight online surveillance through facebook, google and the other NSA-approved social media. How about instead we save some energy and invest it in better encryption and security?
So facebook and google are now "NSA-approved" how can I get my products and services NSA approved?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What the GPL restricts is restrictions. Going with BSD allows more restrictions to be placed on the software by others. It's similar in essence to forbidding slavery — some rhetorician might suggest that it abridges people's freedom to own each other, but the actual intent is to preserve a greater amount of freedom.
I find it funny that restrictions that in practice prevent people from monetizing software is compared to abolishing slavery. I'm pretty sure the TSA also thinks its restrictions on air travel lead to greater freedom of mobility.
No! The GPL and it's ilk are not and never have been about restrictions that in practice prevent people from monetizing software. When are people going to get that? The source code has to be supplied. You can still charge for access to it. I could make $KILLERAPP and charge $1000 for it, and not allow it to be public, but as long as when a customer buys it, I give them access to the source, I'm still GPL compliant.
Yeah yeah, this is where you go off about "in practice". Still wrong. In practice it doesn't prevent anything, in fact is is the practices used by companies (and people) that prevent them from using GPL, not the other way around.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find it funny that restrictions that in practice prevent people from monetizing software is compared to abolishing slavery. I'm pretty sure the TSA also thinks its restrictions on air travel lead to greater freedom of mobility.
"I find it funny that restrictions that in practice prevent people from monetizing software" No! The GPL and it's ilk are not and never have been about restrictions that in practice prevent people from monetizing software. When are people going to get that? The source code has to be supplied. You can still charge for access to it. I could make $KILLERAPP and charge $1000 for it, and not allow it to be public, but as…
You're glazing over a lot of practical issues. For example, if you charge money for a product you are distributing under the GPL, once it has been purchased once, nobody else needs to purchase it because the first customer can simply give it away to everyone for free and you have no recourse.
Can you think of even one GPL product that has been successful through sales of GPL licenses? Because I really can't. In practice, companies that make money from GPL software almost never make their money from selling the software.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If GPL people are concerned about restrictive licenses why not use BSD or MIT which contain fewer restrictions?
I think this is a completely valid question in the context of GPL (quite off-topic, but invoked in the parent thread) and I do not understand why this was downvoted. GPL might have been about freedom at the time when it was introduced. Nowadays I and most businesses are scanning every piece of software for GPL in order to verify whether it is free.
I'm not saying that I would not contribute it non-GPL software. I do not mind companies closing their products.
However, GPL people do mind companies closing their software. So, those companies not using GPL libraries, no matter how useful is perfectly OK result.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I find it funny that restrictions that in practice prevent people from monetizing software" No! The GPL and it's ilk are not and never have been about restrictions that in practice prevent people from monetizing software. When are people going to get that? The source code has to be supplied. You can still charge for access to it. I could make $KILLERAPP and charge $1000 for it, and not allow it to be public, but as…
> Yeah yeah, this is where you go off about "in practice". Still wrong. In practice it doesn't prevent anything, in fact is is the practices used by companies (and people) that prevent them from using GPL, not the other way around. You're glazing over a lot of practical issues. For example, if you charge money for a product you are distributing under the GPL, once it has been purchased once, nobody else needs to purc…
Actually yes, I can think of a quite a few. Redhat is a good example of a huge industry built around GPL software.
That really isn't the point though, and allow me to summarize your misconception.
"nobody else needs to purchase it because the first customer can simply give it away to everyone for free and you have no recourse."
Explain to me how this applies to GPL and not the BSD, (I doubt you can) and you will see how (at least this particular) argument is flawed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US Constitual protection for privacy only applies to US citizens. Would US citizens be willing to amend it to make it apply to everyone.
Some things in the constitution apply only to citizens, most don't. When it says person, it means person, not citizen. Educating people that this prevalent view is false would already go a long way.
That is part of the reason we have a detention facility at Guantanemo.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yeah yeah, this is where you go off about "in practice". Still wrong. In practice it doesn't prevent anything, in fact is is the practices used by companies (and people) that prevent them from using GPL, not the other way around. You're glazing over a lot of practical issues. For example, if you charge money for a product you are distributing under the GPL, once it has been purchased once, nobody else needs to purc…
"Can you think of even one GPL product that has been successful through sales of GPL licenses? " Actually yes, I can think of a quite a few. Redhat is a good example of a huge industry built around GPL software. That really isn't the point though, and allow me to summarize your misconception. "nobody else needs to purchase it because the first customer can simply give it away to everyone for free and you have no reco…
It's funny all these people putting down "social networking", when most of us here work for companies who pay a shit ton of money to advertise and gain traction on "social networks". Then, on top of that, there are many of us here working to build more and improve social networking.
You bitch about how the media is corrupting the public's mind, yet you scoff at organizations that tries to use the media to rally for support of meaningful causes....
Every. Single. Time. Someone wants to do something positive, you guys just come and shit all over it.
I think the true slacktivism is people who bitch about slacktivism and offers no other solutions.
So, something like this: People: "Stop spying on us!" NSA: "Well, we kind of want to, but if you insist.." People: "Alright then, cool." (NSA calmly continues doing whatever they damn well please) Here's an alternative version: People: "Stop spying on us!" NSA: "Fuck you, peasants." People: "No, fuck you! We'll write to some thoroughly corrupt sociopaths and they'll stop your spying because they care about our well-b…
>and governments
That escalated quickly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yeah yeah, this is where you go off about "in practice". Still wrong. In practice it doesn't prevent anything, in fact is is the practices used by companies (and people) that prevent them from using GPL, not the other way around. You're glazing over a lot of practical issues. For example, if you charge money for a product you are distributing under the GPL, once it has been purchased once, nobody else needs to purc…
"Can you think of even one GPL product that has been successful through sales of GPL licenses? " Actually yes, I can think of a quite a few. Redhat is a good example of a huge industry built around GPL software. That really isn't the point though, and allow me to summarize your misconception. "nobody else needs to purchase it because the first customer can simply give it away to everyone for free and you have no reco…
The only companies that make money on software containing GPL'd code are doing it server-side with pre-GPLV3 or AGPL'd code. I've worked at a lot of companies that used and created open source software; and the rules are invariably the same: No GPL'd software allowed into the source tree, period.