Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

PHP5 JSON Still In A Licensing Mess

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by peppercats View Post
    This isn't a "trivial" deal, telling people they can't use software inherently makes it nonfree. It also leaves 'good' and 'evil' undefined and up to the interpretation of a court of law... which can be ridiculous.
    Everybody knows the difference between right and wrong. Right and wrong, good and evil, what's the difference? I'm convinced that good and evil is inherently defined.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by duby229 View Post
      Everybody knows the difference between right and wrong. Right and wrong, good and evil, what's the difference? I'm convinced that good and evil is inherently defined.
      No it's not, good and evil is entirely point of view.
      Based on this, you can assume the license assumes that you can't use the software for anything the author deems "evil", which may be anything he decides he doesn't like.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by duby229 View Post
        Everybody knows the difference between right and wrong. Right and wrong, good and evil, what's the difference? I'm convinced that good and evil is inherently defined.
        Okay, what do you think of cannibalistic tribes in Amazonia ? I am pretty sure they are convinced to be right. What do you think of japanese Kamikaze during WWII ? they were convinced to be right, too... Etc...

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by doom_Oo7 View Post
          Okay, what do you think of cannibalistic tribes in Amazonia ? I am pretty sure they are convinced to be right. What do you think of japanese Kamikaze during WWII ? they were convinced to be right, too... Etc...
          Whats the greater evil? Eating a person or upsetting your deity? Sacrificing yourself or losing a war to your enemy?

          It's not balck and white. It's not binary. I guess you do make a good point though, sometimes you just have to choose the lesser of two evils. Sometimes the only options you have arent right.
          Last edited by duby229; 08-22-2013, 12:04 PM.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by duby229 View Post
            I really don't care what Stallman and the FSF says, they are wrong. Read the the GPL and it clearly isnt free. There are some pretty expensive terms used, the most expensive being the copyleft.
            Of course it's free. It's Free Software. It's guaranteed to also stay free because of the copyleft. And if you don't care what the FSF says, too bad, so sad - the rest of the world agrees with their definition of "Free Software", not yours - seeing as it's a term they invented and defined.

            You see, language is a contract based on consensus. Words don't have any inherent meaning, their meaning is just what people decide it is. So if most people agree what Free Software means, and you disagree and think it means something else, no one will care what you think because most people will still use the commonly accepted meaning. In this case, the commonly accepted meaning of Free Software is what FSF says it is. Good luck convincing everyone that their definition is wrong and yours is right.

            You can go around telling everyone how you think "cheeseburger" doesn't actually mean a cheeseburger, but everyone else will still call a cheeseburger "cheeseburger", and if you want to make yourself understood, you will have to conform to that practice. Because if you say "tuna sandwich" when you actually mean "cheeseburger", everyone will just think you're crazy. And they'll probably be right.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by dee. View Post
              Of course it's free. It's Free Software. It's guaranteed to also stay free because of the copyleft. And if you don't care what the FSF says, too bad, so sad - the rest of the world agrees with their definition of "Free Software", not yours - seeing as it's a term they invented and defined.

              You see, language is a contract based on consensus. Words don't have any inherent meaning, their meaning is just what people decide it is. So if most people agree what Free Software means, and you disagree and think it means something else, no one will care what you think because most people will still use the commonly accepted meaning. In this case, the commonly accepted meaning of Free Software is what FSF says it is. Good luck convincing everyone that their definition is wrong and yours is right.

              You can go around telling everyone how you think "cheeseburger" doesn't actually mean a cheeseburger, but everyone else will still call a cheeseburger "cheeseburger", and if you want to make yourself understood, you will have to conform to that practice. Because if you say "tuna sandwich" when you actually mean "cheeseburger", everyone will just think you're crazy. And they'll probably be right.
              I didn't say anything at all about cheeseburgers, so you can please stop trying to change what we are talking about. And I couldnt care any less whether people agreed with me or not. The first statement I made was that it was just my opinion. You are free to disagree with me if you want.... But you see theres that word free..... In all commonly accepted usages of that word it means something different than what Stallman tries to impose on it....

              Any word can be defined by its context. The context that Stallman imposes is definitely not the common context.

              EDIT: Is the GPL open source? Definitely yes and permanently. Is it free? Definitely no. It's the copyleft that makes it so. It makes it permanently open source, but also makes it so I'm not free to do a lot of things.
              Last edited by duby229; 08-22-2013, 01:39 PM.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by duby229 View Post
                Everybody knows the difference between right and wrong. Right and wrong, good and evil, what's the difference? I'm convinced that good and evil is inherently defined.
                Almost everyone knows the difference between right and wrong (apart from: small children, certain mentally ill or brain damaged people) - however, there's a catch: almost no one agrees on the definitions of "right" and "wrong". Whose authority is used to decide what is "right" and what is "wrong", especially since the license in question doesn't define it?

                It's all fine for the developer to laugh and think of the whole thing as a big joke, "hur hur I put a silly text on mah licenz and now IBM sends silly email to me lulz"... which kind of makes me think, some idiot has come up with a new way to annoy people: License trolling. I mean, it's kind of clever in a really stupid way: the text is simplistic, na´ve, with a 3rd-grader-level view of the world - and when people disagree with the clause, it's easy to troll them with "what, you want to be evil? no one should do evil! Why do you want to do evil?" And then it's easy to get all the simple folks roused up to blame the humorless "GPL-purists" for not getting the joke, or being too anal about licenses, what's the harm with a bit of fun in a license...

                But, that's the thing - it's easy to claim "hey, it just forbids you from doing evil, of course you agree with that, you're not evil are you?" But when you look at it in legal terms - which is the only way a license should be looked at - legally, it's a loophole. It gives the developer free hands to later on say "I disagree with what you're doing and think it is evil, so therefore you have to stop". It's a trap! And if you ask for a special license to ignore the clause, you set yourself and your company up for bad PR because people can instantly take pot shots at you for "wanting to do evil".

                100 years ago, interracial marriage was largely considered evil. Homosexuality was considered evil. Some people consider abortion evil even today. Slavery was once considered totally fine, as long as it was only done to people who look different. In fact it was "evil" to free someone else's slave without their permission. It would have been seen as theft. Which the bible says is evil - and don't even get me started on the bible...

                The point is, no one can say what is good or evil, because of moral relativity - there's no ultimate source of moral authority, laws and morals change with time. Morals aren't absolute. So when someone forbids us from doing "evil", how can we trust that their definition of "evil" is in any way reasonable? We have no guarantees, no definitions of what they consider "evil" - for all we know, they may consider it "evil" to use their software without giving them constant blowjobs. And we're not made of blowjobs, now are we?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by dee. View Post
                  Almost everyone knows the difference between right and wrong (apart from: small children, certain mentally ill or brain damaged people) - however, there's a catch: almost no one agrees on the definitions of "right" and "wrong". Whose authority is used to decide what is "right" and what is "wrong", especially since the license in question doesn't define it?

                  It's all fine for the developer to laugh and think of the whole thing as a big joke, "hur hur I put a silly text on mah licenz and now IBM sends silly email to me lulz"... which kind of makes me think, some idiot has come up with a new way to annoy people: License trolling. I mean, it's kind of clever in a really stupid way: the text is simplistic, na´ve, with a 3rd-grader-level view of the world - and when people disagree with the clause, it's easy to troll them with "what, you want to be evil? no one should do evil! Why do you want to do evil?" And then it's easy to get all the simple folks roused up to blame the humorless "GPL-purists" for not getting the joke, or being too anal about licenses, what's the harm with a bit of fun in a license...

                  But, that's the thing - it's easy to claim "hey, it just forbids you from doing evil, of course you agree with that, you're not evil are you?" But when you look at it in legal terms - which is the only way a license should be looked at - legally, it's a loophole. It gives the developer free hands to later on say "I disagree with what you're doing and think it is evil, so therefore you have to stop". It's a trap! And if you ask for a special license to ignore the clause, you set yourself and your company up for bad PR because people can instantly take pot shots at you for "wanting to do evil".

                  100 years ago, interracial marriage was largely considered evil. Homosexuality was considered evil. Some people consider abortion evil even today. Slavery was once considered totally fine, as long as it was only done to people who look different. In fact it was "evil" to free someone else's slave without their permission. It would have been seen as theft. Which the bible says is evil - and don't even get me started on the bible...

                  The point is, no one can say what is good or evil, because of moral relativity - there's no ultimate source of moral authority, laws and morals change with time. Morals aren't absolute. So when someone forbids us from doing "evil", how can we trust that their definition of "evil" is in any way reasonable? We have no guarantees, no definitions of what they consider "evil" - for all we know, they may consider it "evil" to use their software without giving them constant blowjobs. And we're not made of blowjobs, now are we?
                  In this case the standard of good and evil would be set by the licensor. This is pretty basic stuff here.

                  It's also why the clause is completely impractical.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    It has a value in it self to keep these things in order. You may think what you want about gpl, but at least that is a well known license. If you say that a codebase i gpl2 or gpl2 compatible you know what that means. If the codebase is mix of slightly different licenses you don't actually know anything for sure about how you may use it (change it, distribute it etc) (like one of those click-through eulas no one reads). Not without going through and analyzing each of them, and I'm not a lawyer.

                    Gpl is benchmark, "not more than these restriction". If you don't like the price you may shop elsewhere, but at least it's a known price.

                    It might be a funny easter egg, but when it's found, the only reasonable thing to do is get a copy with a new license or throw the code out.
                    Last edited by Qaz`; 08-22-2013, 02:13 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      I hope Microsoft sues everyone who uses this license because they see any software that competes with their own as evil, and to them, the software is evil and unlawful.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by randomizer View Post
                        Of course there hasn't. This is PHP we're talking about. It gains hot new features years after they've matured in other languages.
                        The replacement was written by a Fedora contributor and is already packaged in Fedora, as php-pecl-jsonc .

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Sidicas View Post
                          Yes! Get this garbage out of Debian ASAP!

                          I'll say it before and I'll say it again, programmers make terrible lawyers and vice versa.

                          Devil's Advocate:
                          So I heard you were considering using this open source software on your PC. As it turns out, I have a company that employs a few dozen people and we developed a proprietary solution that costs a few hundred dollars to use on your PC. It has been reported to us anonymously that you have unfortunately decided not to purchase our software.

                          We'd like to inform you that by not purchasing our software we cannot continue to keep our employees employed, and our employees feel that you are doing evil to them and so you don't actually have a license to use the "open source" software that you're using.

                          In addition to that, an economist has determined that by not purchasing our software, this causes damage to our local economy which we take as an additional sign that you are using this open source software for evil and are in violation of the open source software's licensing agreement that specifically says the software can be used for good, and not evil!

                          As a matter of fact, one of our employees recently had a baby and we're looking at having to downsize because nobody buys our software. They're going to lose their house because they can't make payments and they're going to be forced to move in with their parents. Clearly, anybody can see that forcing such a situation onto somebody, is the work of a mastermind of pure evil.

                          As such, we're just informing you that you don't actually have a license to use the open source software and continuing to use it is just the same crime as pirating any copy of Microsoft Windows without a license.

                          Of course, we offer you a licensing option of our software that you can purchase from us and we'll guarantee that you won't be in violation of any licenses.
                          /Devil's Advocate


                          Think this couldn't happen? That's what people said about SCO vs. IBM.. That's what people said about the NSA.. If you make bullshit changes to a license you damn well better know what you're doing and programmers usually don't when it comes to licenses.

                          Again, as a Debian user I want to see this garbage get kicked out of Debian and let's make something a lot better that's actually "free".

                          Lawyers absolutely *LOVE* undefined "good/evil" terms in licenses, because they can be bent and twisted to mean anything they want them to mean! In fact in one court case it can be twisted to mean one thing and in another it can be twisted to mean the opposite. That's why the GPL and other well written licenses doesn't have this kind of crap.
                          People can say a lot of things about how they perceive different licenses and your compliance with them. In the US and many other similar jurisdictions, they can't bring suit against you if they are not the rights holder.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by duby229 View Post
                            I didn't say anything at all about cheeseburgers, so you can please stop trying to change what we are talking about. And I couldnt care any less whether people agreed with me or not. The first statement I made was that it was just my opinion. You are free to disagree with me if you want.... But you see theres that word free..... In all commonly accepted usages of that word it means something different than what Stallman tries to impose on it....

                            Any word can be defined by its context. The context that Stallman imposes is definitely not the common context.

                            EDIT: Is the GPL open source? Definitely yes and permanently. Is it free? Definitely no. It's the copyleft that makes it so. It makes it permanently open source, but also makes it so I'm not free to do a lot of things.
                            I think the "permanently" part is very important. I believe the GPL is a compromise on the ideals of absolute freedom in order to make the freedoms that it does allow perpetual. In that respect, I consider the GPL to be more free than licenses that allow the freedom to take away others' freedom.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by AdamW View Post
                              The replacement was written by a Fedora contributor and is already packaged in Fedora, as php-pecl-jsonc .
                              Finally some good news.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Serge View Post
                                People can say a lot of things about how they perceive different licenses and your compliance with them. In the US and many other similar jurisdictions, they can't bring suit against you if they are not the rights holder.
                                The rights holder is around, and you can't be certain he won't sue you for using the software for what he perceives to be evil.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X