PHP5 JSON Still In A Licensing Mess

[doom_Oo7]

First of all your analogy doesnt work, a cheeseburger is a physical object. Can you tell me what physical object a free is? Is your cheeseburger a free? I would love to hear you try to wiggle around trying to explain how this analogy works.

Okay, I'll make it for the other guy. He wrote :

"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."

Since you failed at your homework, the metaphor is that a "cheeseburger" explains more easily the meaning of the word "free", but any other word would do since this metaphor is about using the right meaning:

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

Edit: for instance, in French we are lucky to have :
"libre" and "gratuit" which both translates to free.
"lbre" -> free as in free speech (do you know LibreOffice ? LinuxLibre )
"gratuit" -> "free beer"

[duby229]

Okay, I'll make it for the other guy. He wrote :

Since you failed at your homework, the metaphor is that a "cheeseburger" explains more easily the meaning of the word "free", but any other word would do since this metaphor is about using the right meaning:

It doesnt work, because GPL code isnt free. calling it free does -not- make it so.

Edit: for instance, in French we are lucky to have :
"libre" and "gratuit" which both translates to free.
"lbre" -> free as in free speech (do you know LibreOffice ? LinuxLibre )
"gratuit" -> "free beer"

I never said anything at all about monetary meaning of the word. You are trying to argu against me on a point that I never made.... There has to be some kind of psychology behind that.

EDIT: A car is not a bus. A bat is not a bird. A spider is not an insect. etc etc etc..... Calling something what isnt does not make it true.

EDIT2: Maybe this will make more sense.... Both an apple and a tomato are fruits. All fruits are vegetables. So therefore both an apple and a tomato are vegetables.... get it now?

My point is that there are tons of examples where a few people use words wrongly and then assume that everyone else does too. But just because that happens does not make it true. It was Stallman who first started the misuse of the word free in this example. But just because he misuses it doesnt mean that it's ok for everyone to misuse it.

[doom_Oo7]

It doesnt work, because GPL code isnt free. calling it free does -not- make it so.

Okay. Please explain, in the best way possible, what is "free" to you.

I never said anything at all about monetary meaning of the word. You are trying to argu against me on a point that I never made.... There has to be some kind of psychology behind that.

I was not answering to you on this point.

EDIT2: Maybe this will make more sense.... Both an apple and a tomato are fruits. All fruits are vegetables. So therefore both an apple and a tomato are vegetables.... get it now?

I don't get what you are trying to show using a bad syllogism, since the assertion "All fruits are vegetables." is wrong.

My point is that there are tons of examples where a few people use words wrongly and then assume that everyone else does too. But just because that happens does not make it true.

It might be true for factual terms, like classificating what is an apple by its genome, but it certainly isn't for high-level philosophical concepts that are debated every day.

[intellivision]

You're selling yourself short there, surely you're above a brick wall's level of cognitive ability.

He's got a point though.
If the GPL was truly 'free' in the sense of the word, then I should be free to combine code from a GNU licensed project with another FOSS project, for example, GPLv2 only and Apache v2, or AGPL and the Apple Public Source License.
Sadly, I'm not permitted to do this although all of these licenses are OSI and FSF approved.

So no, if it lacks this basic compatibility with other FOSS licenses then it can't really be defined as 'free'. Copyleft however, yes.

[erendorn]

I don't know what you are talking about, but:
- In dictionaries, words have numbered definitions because they can have different meanings.
- Some people have said that in order to protect freedom, you might need to sacrifice some freedom (but I can't remember if these people were good or evil).

[duby229]

I don't get what you are trying to show using a bad syllogism, since the assertion "All fruits are vegetables." is wrong.

That's the point that I'm trying to make. In fact all fruits -are- vegetables. But you believe something that isnt true and then expect everyone else to believe it too.

[duby229]

You're selling yourself short there, surely you're above a brick wall's level of cognitive ability.

Or rather the strength of a brick wall. The attempt here is to change my mind to make me believe something that definitely isnt true. I'll continue having the strength of a brick wall.

[duby229]

He's got a point though.
If the GPL was truly 'free' in the sense of the word, then I should be free to combine code from a GNU licensed project with another FOSS project, for example, GPLv2 only and Apache v2, or AGPL and the Apple Public Source License.
Sadly, I'm not permitted to do this although all of these licenses are OSI and FSF approved.

So no, if it lacks this basic compatibility with other FOSS licenses then it can't really be defined as 'free'. Copyleft however, yes.

And that is exactly why I personally prefer to use the term Open Source Software (OSS) over Free Software.

[GreatEmerald]

He's got a point though.
If the GPL was truly 'free' in the sense of the word, then I should be free to combine code from a GNU licensed project with another FOSS project, for example, GPLv2 only and Apache v2, or AGPL and the Apple Public Source License.
Sadly, I'm not permitted to do this although all of these licenses are OSI and FSF approved.

So no, if it lacks this basic compatibility with other FOSS licenses then it can't really be defined as 'free'. Copyleft however, yes.

But you are free to do that. Everyone is. What the GPL restricts is distribution of such code, because that would create loopholes through which a project could become non-free. And the GPL is aimed at keeping code free forever. Freedom to remove freedom is not a freedom.

[dee.]

First of all your analogy doesnt work, a cheeseburger is a physical object. Can you tell me what physical object a free is? Is your cheeseburger a free? I would love to hear you try to wiggle around trying to explain how this analogy works.

Ok, I can see this is going to be even harder than I thought before... look, just let me know if I'm using too big words or going too fast, ok? I don't have much experience of teaching special-needs kids.

The concept of an analogy is that you describe something by talking about something else. Often, they are used to describe abstract concepts that are difficult for slow-minded people to grasp, by comparing them to something a bit more tangible. This makes it easier for the poor, slow-minded monkeys to understand, because they find it hard to wrap their minds around abstract concepts.

Come on now. You can't possibly be that stupid.

Young man, use your indoor voice and be civil or it's detention for you.

I disagree, and stated clearly already why I do. My disagreement with you is what a freedom is.

Once again, you can decide words have different meanings for you, but no one will agree with you, so you're in practice inventing your own language. A language which no one else speaks, and is thus completely useless.

I never said anything at all about monetary terms.

No, but I figured I would explain it to you, since you seemed to be having enough trouble with words already.

I've already explained. If you don't understand, then by all means, please take the time to reread.

I wasn't asking you to explain, that was what is known as a "rhetorical question". It means a question that is not meant to be answered, either because there's no right answer to the question, or because the answer is considered obvious, or already implied by the question or its context.

I'm never going to change my mind. arguing with me on this is a lot like arguing with a brick wall.... it's pointless.

And you're actually proud of this?

I mean, I agree, talking with you is a lot like talking to a brick wall (hey, look, another analogy... this time, it's a simile, bonus points if you can point out why)... I've just never met anyone who would willingly admit that particular description of themselves. But hey, at least you're honest, that counts for something, I'm sure...