Moxie said:
Still, I can't see why it is so important to you to be able to use other peoples work against their expressed intention?
That has nothing to do with it. I can't use Microsoft's code against thier expressed intention either, but I don't avoid their software because of it (I avoid their software because, for someone of my skill level, it's far inferior to Linux or FreeBSD, but that's another issue entirely.) The difference is, as Orkie said, that MS doesn't claim some high-horse ideal of Freedom.
Sure, Stallman is (at least nowadays) a nutter. But if you can get past the "Teh GPL is EVIL coz it's made by the EVIL ONE" and actually look at its function - a way for the authors of code to ascertain that the code is used in accord with their intentions - I really can't see any argument behind all the foaming-at-the-mouth-stuff.
1) Is it a threat to your freedom that programmers are free to impose their will on their own creations?
2) Is it a threat to your freedom that other programmers wills are different than your own ("Keep in in the community" instead of "Do with it what you will")?
I have great difficulties to see any of these "limitations on your freedom" to have more substance than a three-year-olds "I want that! I wanna do whatever with it!"
That's because you're not listening. My problem is NOT with the GPL license itself. My problem is with GNU's agenda and hypocrisy. I've made that clear more than once.
Iignotious
iignotious said:
Do you know how hard it is to argue with someone like you that doesn't listen to reason?
I'm perfectly willing to listen to reason. You just aren't offering any. "The users don't have to be free, because the code is" is NOT reasonable.
It's like yelling at a house plant. How can't, nor shouldn't, information have freedom?
Because it's not SENTIENT. "Freedom" is the capability of self-determination. Things that are not capable of thought do NOT have that.
Why would you want to champion a tirade about how the sharing of information is bad for you personally? Are you afraid of knowledge? From the viewing of your posts, it certainly seems that's how you've been living your life so far.
For someone who thinks so highly of his debate skills, you fall rather easily to setting up flimsy strawmen. Are you going to ask me "Why do you hate America and puppies?" next?
Starting again with the conflagratory and prejudicial assumptions? Nice to see you keep a mature, level head when faced with debate.
This isn't a debate, as you've done nothing but appeal to emotion, and offered no solid points. This is a flamewar. That's why you can completely ignore the fact that what I said was entirely true, and get away with your strawmen and parroting. You've given me no indication that you can handle a debate.
But I'm feeling indulgent. If it's proof you want: Full quotes left intact so I can't be accused of taking statements out of context.
Interview: Richard Stallman
http://kerneltrap.org/node/4484?from=100&a.....s_per_page=50
Richard Stallman: This is no justification at all. A non-free program systematically denies the users the freedom to cooperate; it is the basis of an antisocial scheme to dominate people. The program is available lawfully only to those who will surrender their freedom. That's not a contribution to society, it's a social problem. It is better to develop no software than to develop non-free software.
Looks like he's talking about *people's* freedom's there. Kind of gives lie to your "They mean the code is free, not the people" assertions. I particularly like that blurb about "its better to develop no software than to developed 'non-free' software."
Mmm... Gotta love those emotionally loaded terms.
JA: What about the programmers...
Richard Stallman: What about them? The programmers writing non-free software? They are doing something antisocial. They should get some other job.
Writing closed source software is "antisocial." That's a strong accusation if you know what that word actually means.
And I don't have "ilk", much to your bigoted dismay.
I suggest you look up the words "ilk" and "bigot" since you apparently don't know what either of them means.
Here's a hint though: you definitely have an 'ilk.' You defend this crap the same as many others do: with redefinitions of words ("Freedom" being a big one), fallacious reasoning, appeals to emotion, and absolutely no idea what you're talking about. To quote that entirely over-quoted movie, you are not a special and unique snowflake. You're just one more face who is more attached to GNU than you even admit to yourself. If that's not the case, why are you trying so hard (if miserably unsuccessfully) to defend it?
You are being more biased and less acknowledged than anyone in this thread could dream to be.
So are you. The difference is that I admitted my bias against GNU and gave the reasoning for it. You just give me recycled GNU propaganda and claim some high horse which you defend with lots of fallacious arguments.
You're condemning an entire idea based on one man's opinion. Let me tell you, since obviously you don't know, but Stallman is not seen as the ultimate bastion of sanity and good will among GNU developers, at least not the sane ones. And yet what you're doing right now is judging an entire organisation and license based on one person who has strayed from his own ideals; your mind couldn't be any more wizened and closed.
When you appoint Charles Manson as your PR faceman, you have to expect that it will effect the way people view your company. The same goes for Stallman and his org. That's why it's called "Public Relations." If they want to lose the whole psycho-hippie image, they need to shut Stallman up and put up someone at least REMOTELY in touch with the material plane in his spot.
And apparently you don't have a lot of traffic with the open source community, if you think Stallman is the only (to borrow Moxie's word) "nutter" in the pro-GPL crowd. I suggest you visit the appropriate sections of slashdot, sourceforge, or usenet.
Edits: WTF is up with the quoting?
