Originally posted by artivision
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Richard Stallman Calls LLVM A "Terrible Setback"
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by mrugiero View PostIt's not a misconception. He assumes we live within legal systems that allow enforcement of copyright. It's your responsibility to try to enforce it, just the way companies could enforce theirs with pirates. It's the impracticality of doing so with common users which stops them.
The comparison was like that:
If you can't pirate it, you will certainly still use it and so you will buy it <=> If you can't use the code legally in a proprietary project, you will certainly still use it, and so you will open source your project.
And, well, it does not work like that.
Comment
-
Originally posted by mark45 View PostStallman is wrong, he hates proprietary code and patents, the GPL states:
What made people like you expect source code to be closed and hidden by default?
I mean, if I buy a car, its not like I cant open the hood and change the coil if I really want to
Comment
-
Originally posted by corebob View PostWhere did proprietarty code came from in the first place?
What made people like you expect source code to be closed and hidden by default?
I mean, if I buy a car, its not like I cant open the hood and change the coil if I really want to
And then you can imagine the mikado game of research - the first that invests loses
Comment
-
Originally posted by corebob View PostWhere did proprietarty code came from in the first place?
What made people like you expect source code to be closed and hidden by default?
If the programmer wants to give it out, it's pure goodwill on his part. But locking it away is the developer's right to do so if he so desires.
I once wrote a hacky (and very poor quality, segfault-prone but workable) program using GTK3 that runs top in the background and pipes the output to a textfile until it's stopped by the user, and then splits the output into different textfiles based on the parameters selected in the interface to facilitate some logging for a task last year. I'm not obligated (and have no desire) to give away the source to my little application.
Comment
-
Originally posted by profoundWHALE View PostSo, we're back to the whole BSD vs GPL license thing again are we?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adarion View Postbut BSD/MIT is a one way license not making sure that the free code stays free.
And the increasing (in absolute and in market share) amount of permissively licensed projects prove that they not only stay open source, but get contributions.
Originally posted by corebob View PostEither you recognize what a game changer GPL is, or you don't. Its that simple.
I'm with RMS on this one
Originally posted by profoundWHALE View PostSo, we're back to the whole BSD vs GPL license thing again are we?
Even proprietary programs are better than nothing as long as they don't imper competition or prevent other solutions (EEE, lock-in, etc..).
Comment
-
Originally posted by discordian View PostNice analogy, if you compare that to GPL then you would expect the car to come with all schematics included and tools (including their schematics) freely available so you can build any and all parts of it.
And then you can imagine the mikado game of research - the first that invests loses
Your idea stems from a model that does not value the work behind the product.
If you can produce billions of pills to cure polio each day, can you really justify a $100 price tag?
I guess it boils down to the fact that I prefer the properties of a open flexible community over a closed and fixed one. Its a lifestyle kind of thing.
Of course, it doesn't get really ugly until ever lasting patents and lawyers enters the sceneLast edited by corebob; 24 January 2014, 02:47 PM.
Comment
Comment