Gpfce V0.2 Released

[iignotus]

There are two kinds of freedom -- the kind where you only take yourself into account, and the kind where you acknowledge that freedom should be inherent to everyone. If you want the former, use a license such as BSD; if you want the latter, GPL is the license you should use. There is no other license with the benefit of everyone in mind moreso than the GPL.

I think you are wrong. The GPL is less free because it doesn't let anybody use the code.

It lets everyone use the code as long as it's not to make money with and is freely shared with anyone who asks. BSD licenses have the option of blocking out people to changes made to code licensed under it. GPL is much more free because it is academic in nature; BSD is more practical and personal in nature. And no, practical is not always better.

 

[crwl]

It lets everyone use the code as long as it's not to make money with and is freely shared with anyone who asks.

You can try to make all the money in the world with GPL'd software, the licence doesn't disallow that.

 

[Orkie]

You *can't* use code licensed under the GPL it in any program: fact. So no, not everybody can use GPL-ed code. However, BSD licenses will fit in with anything, so are more free because anybody can use it, not just the free software community. The GPL forces you to use the GPL which removes your freedom to use whatever license you wish.

 

[iignotus]

It lets everyone use the code as long as it's not to make money with and is freely shared with anyone who asks.

You can try to make all the money in the world with GPL'd software, the licence doesn't disallow that.

Yes but you still have to provide the source code when asked, so it's really a moot point. You can't make a business out of selling GPL software.

You *can't* use code licensed under the GPL it in any program: fact. So no, not everybody can use GPL-ed code. However, BSD licenses will fit in with anything, so are more free because anybody can use it, not just the free software community. The GPL forces you to use the GPL which removes your freedom to use whatever license you wish.

Yes, everyone can use GPL code: fact. Are you trying to make a point? There is nothing stopping anyone in the entire world from using any revision of GPL code. The only thing is that they can't change licenses on that code, and must keep it under GPL. They can still use it though, obviously. With BSD licenses, code revisions may be kept secret and not subject to sharing. Therefore, not everyone will be able to use some BSD-licensed code: fact. :lol: I thought it was quite simple... didn't think it would take so long to explain...

 

[icurafu]

Who is Giuseppe Zompatori, anyway?

He would have have to be someone from this forum, or how else would he know about the product?

If you are reading this, I think you had the right to ask for the source, but it sounded like you were rude and offensive to someone who is only giving to a comunity.

If I was the developer, I certainaly wouldn't continue.

 

[GeminiDomino]

Last time I checked, the GPL was a legal document that is also held up in court cases. Legally, there's no reason to be "nice" or cater to those who break its terms.

Check again. It hadn't been tested in court when you posted this, and since was tested once... in Germany. If German court decisions don't hold weight in your jurisdiction, it's still untested.

It lets everyone use the code as long as it's not to make money with and is freely shared with anyone who asks. BSD licenses have the option of blocking out people to changes made to code licensed under it. GPL is much more free because it is academic in nature; BSD is more practical and personal in nature. And no, practical is not always better.

Now I know you're just a GPL Zealot. No one else (except maybe US Politicians) is mentally deficient enough to redefine "free" to mean "as long as you do what we tell you to." BSD and MIT say "Give us credit for the original. Beyond that, hell, go to town."

Your analysis is also bollocks. The GPL is not 'academic', it's philosophical at best, and political at worst. And yes, practical IS always better that political.

 

[GeminiDomino]

Geeze, that's pretty scummy. Damn GPL Nazi. I'm sure if he just spoke to Zheng directly and pointed out the issue, he would have released the source--no need to dob him in. Bloody hell.

Yeah, the GPL is great. Nothing like a politically charged agenda to spawn an army of jerkoffs to kill potentially valuable projects.

Hail Stallman!

 

[iignotus]

:lol: No GeminiDomino, you're not a troll at all :lol: :lol:

 

[GeminiDomino]

:lol: No GeminiDomino, you're not a troll at all :lol: :lol:

Only the Stallmanites think I am. The smart people know I'm right.

Tried reading back a bit, but couldn't find it, but......

Has anyone even ASKED him for the source code nicely yet?!?!
Isn't the GPL specify that it has to be released "UPON REQUEST"?

He's made the diff available on his website.

 

[iignotus]

:lol: No GeminiDomino, you're not a troll at all :lol: :lol:

Only the Stallmanites think I am. The smart people know I'm right.

Exactly my point. No one could/should ever take someone so prejudiced and bigoted as you seriously. So in reality, I'm just sitting back and laughing at you :lol:

Have an awesome day

 

[Orkie]

You are equally biased it seems.

 

[iignotus]

You are equally biased it seems.

Prove it instead of talking out of your ass, please.

 

[Ze_ro]

So is there no one at all working on this anymore? It's a shame that such a promising program could be derailed by something as silly as licensing issues...

--Zero

 

[DaveC]

So is there no one at all working on this anymore? It's a shame that such a promising program could be derailed by something as silly as licensing issues...

--Zero

Maybe he just didn't feel like working on it anymore and this GPL shit made the decision to quit easier.

 

[o0o0o]

Maybe he just didn't feel like working on it anymore and this GPL shit made the decision to quit easier.

On the upside.. that at least means the code will be available. :lol:

 

[moxie]

It lets everyone use the code as long as it's not to make money with and is freely shared with anyone who asks. BSD licenses have the option of blocking out people to changes made to code licensed under it. GPL is much more free because it is academic in nature; BSD is more practical and personal in nature. And no, practical is not always better.

Now I know you're just a GPL Zealot. No one else (except maybe US Politicians) is mentally deficient enough to redefine "free" to mean "as long as you do what we tell you to." BSD and MIT say "Give us credit for the original. Beyond that, hell, go to town."

I'm afraid you're mistaken. The GPL isn't to protect the freedom of the individual, it is there to protect the freedom of the code, of the information. The laymans version of it is "Ok, so we all decide to do this thing as a community, so we all chip in with what we have. Anyone can join this community, as long as they dont leech it. So, if you make something based on the work of the people in this community, you have to share it with us - You can't base your work on our work without participating in the sharing". All very hippy and stuff, but still: That is the conditions under which you are allowed to use the code. You are as free as anyone to write your own if you don't want to pay the price, and you are free to use the existing code as long as you return your contributions to the common pool.

But I can't really see it as a great threat to your personal freedom that the GPL won't let you nick other peoples work and do what you want with it. And of course, BSD and MIT licenses are there if you want to use them, and they are geared more towards the freedom of the individual - Good for you! But their differences are not on the same scale, it is because of rather radically different goals.

 

[GeminiDomino]

It lets everyone use the code as long as it's not to make money with and is freely shared with anyone who asks. BSD licenses have the option of blocking out people to changes made to code licensed under it. GPL is much more free because it is academic in nature; BSD is more practical and personal in nature. And no, practical is not always better.

Now I know you're just a GPL Zealot. No one else (except maybe US Politicians) is mentally deficient enough to redefine "free" to mean "as long as you do what we tell you to." BSD and MIT say "Give us credit for the original. Beyond that, hell, go to town."

I'm afraid you're mistaken. The GPL isn't to protect the freedom of the individual, it is there to protect the freedom of the code, of the information. The laymans version of it is "Ok, so we all decide to do this thing as a community, so we all chip in with what we have. Anyone can join this community, as long as they dont leech it. So, if you make something based on the work of the people in this community, you have to share it with us - You can't base your work on our work without participating in the sharing". All very hippy and stuff, but still: That is the conditions under which you are allowed to use the code. You are as free as anyone to write your own if you don't want to pay the price, and you are free to use the existing code as long as you return your contributions to the common pool.

But I can't really see it as a great threat to your personal freedom that the GPL won't let you nick other peoples work and do what you want with it. And of course, BSD and MIT licenses are there if you want to use them, and they are geared more towards the freedom of the individual - Good for you! But their differences are not on the same scale, it is because of rather radically different goals.

I am not mistaken. "Code" doesn't have freedom, just like "Information" doesn't "want to be free" and "The Internet" doesn't "route around damage(censorship)." These are all anthropomorphism images used by groups of idealists to illustrate thier points, which get latched onto by the soft-headed faithful and taken as literal gospel truth.

"Code" will not be "Free as in (how GNU defines) Freedom" as GNU says until it's demonstrated that it can independantly express and defend said freedom. Except it can't. Because its fscking source code! The Stallmanites cheapen the word as badly as a corrupt government using it to justify all sorts of completely un-free policies (not mentioning any specifics...).

Funny that you should mention the BSD/MIT licenses, since they're what I use for my own work, (at least until I can finish tweaking up a license that essentially says "You can use this code anywhere EXCEPT in GPLed code") and I've gotten so sick of Stallman and his zombies that I won't work on GPLed code.

iig or one of his ilk will probably make some comment about me being an anti-gpl zealot, completely ignoring the fact that his St. Stallman has actually said that writing closed source code is immoral, and BSD-esque licenses aren't much better, since they can be used in closed source software. That's right, for GNU, distribution methods become a gorram religious issue. They took a good idea and made it into a holy war, complete with propaganda.

Just something to keep in mind when wondering where GNU winning its way threatens my personal freedom.

 

[moxie]

I am not mistaken. "Code" doesn't have freedom, just like "Information" doesn't "want to be free" and "The Internet" doesn't "route around damage(censorship)." These are all anthropomorphism images used by groups of idealists to illustrate thier points, which get latched onto by the soft-headed faithful and taken as literal gospel truth.

*sigh* No, of course not. Read "Protect the free access to the code as intended by it's authors". If you managed to read past the first few lines of the post, you *should* be able to make out my point.

Funny that you should mention the BSD/MIT licenses, since they're what I use for my own work, (at least until I can finish tweaking up a license that essentially says "You can use this code anywhere EXCEPT in GPLed code") and I've gotten so sick of Stallman and his zombies that I won't work on GPLed code.

Which is all good for you, of course - To each his own. Me, I'm fairly license-agnostic. Still, I can't see why it is so important to you to be able to use other peoples work against their expressed intention? The GPL is a flag on the code saying "We made this as a community project, and if you want to play with it, you have to keep it in that community". If those terms are unacceptable to you, just don't work on the damn code? You're free to abstain. Is it a limit on your freedom that people lock their hoses at night? Sure, because you can't walk around where you want. When kids swap hockey cards in the playground, is there a limit on your freedom that you cant take all the cards and give none back? Well, sure, in a way, but only insofar that you put your own freedom to act how you want far above the freedom of everyone elses.

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!"

 

[Jarska333]

This is the way wars are born...

 

[iignotus]

I am not mistaken. "Code" doesn't have freedom, just like "Information" doesn't "want to be free" and "The Internet" doesn't "route around damage(censorship)." These are all anthropomorphism images used by groups of idealists to illustrate thier points, which get latched onto by the soft-headed faithful and taken as literal gospel truth.

Do you know how hard it is to argue with someone like you that doesn't listen to reason? It's like yelling at a house plant. How can't, nor shouldn't, information have freedom? 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.

"Code" will not be "Free as in (how GNU defines) Freedom" as GNU says until it's demonstrated that it can independantly express and defend said freedom. Except it can't. Because its fscking source code! The Stallmanites cheapen the word as badly as a corrupt government using it to justify all sorts of completely un-free policies (not mentioning any specifics...).

It's a license, not a way of life. If you don't agree with it nor how the GNU goes about implementing it, then stop shitting bricks over it. And I have a feeling you're not mentioning any specifics out of a distinct inability to do so.

iig or one of his ilk will probably make some comment about me being an anti-gpl zealot, completely ignoring the fact that his St. Stallman has actually said that writing closed source code is immoral, and BSD-esque licenses aren't much better, since they can be used in closed source software. That's right, for GNU, distribution methods become a gorram religious issue. They took a good idea and made it into a holy war, complete with propaganda.

Starting again with the conflagratory and prejudicial assumptions? Nice to see you keep a mature, level head when faced with debate. I'm not going to call you a zealot because a license disagreement doesn't call for such words. A severe deprivation of intelligence, however, does warrant them, and I'm glad to call you an ignorant fool as your expositions have shown me you are. And I don't have "ilk", much to your bigoted dismay.

You are being more biased and less acknowledged than anyone in this thread could dream to be. 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.