RMS Feels There's "A Systematic Effort To Attack GNU Packages"

[bridgman]

Stupid edit limit... (it's not the timeout that's so annoying, it's having to save my work before hitting submit just in case it times out, then if I do time out I need to restructure all the changes I made so they can go in a separate post rather than being scattered through the original post...

Maybe we need a second rule, 5 posts before you can include links (that seems too low) then after FIVE THOUSAND POSTS maybe the edit limit could be bumped a bit.

Anyways, the point I was trying to add was that while a "corporate GPL" license wouldn't solve all the licensing issues, ie you couldn't mix it in with X11-licensed code, I suspect that over time a suitably positioned license would be used in more areas and might actually displace some of the more permissive licensing.

It would have to be compatible with GPLv2 for that to happen, of course

[entropy]

S then after FIVE THOUSAND POSTS maybe the edit limit could be bumped a bit.

Hey, we're still not sure if you're a bot or not.

[bridgman]

Yeah, some days I have doubts myself...

[brosis]

Rule 1. Do not question the opinion of RMS. In long run he has proven to be absolutely correct, no matter how spooky or crazy what he tells sounds.

He is also not "frightened", he shared his observation and expressed concern.
I don't see him running in loops screaming!

[brosis]

you seem to completely misunderstand GPL and confuse it with BSD like freedom

BSD major target of freedom is user. user can do anything, even produce closed source competitive modifications.

GPL major target of freedom is software and with that user as long as he doesn't break freedom to software. as soon as user would try to break the rules, he lost the right to use it

Do not even bother. He knows exactly what he is trolling about, just ignore him.

[gerddie]

..., eg using gcc as a shader compiler in a proprietary graphics driver would require the whole graphics driver (and possibly more) to be released under the GPL. I doubt that was the original intention.

Considering that you would have to incorporate the compiler as a library (calling an external executable would probably not be a good idea performance wise), I think this is exactly the intention of the GPL. You have to keep in mind that the aim of the FSF is a completely free (as in speech) computing environment, the idea that you want to keep some part of it proprietary is simply not part of that vision.

[jimbohale]

First off, to everyone, please be civil, and stop insulting people...




as @c117152 said it, and I'd expand a bit.
I don't think you understand what RMS is fighting for. It certainly isn't the freedom of choice. What he is fighting for is the right to see the code you're running, and to modify it. And for that right to be guaranteed. The BSD licence doesn't guarantee it, hence BSD-licenced code is dangerous. I sort of agree with him, that the GPL is under attack, and there is a push to go BSD, which allows vendors to take the code, and blob it down. You lose freedom of choice completely then.

Serafean

Functionality is more important to me than licensing. Additionally, this is for a fucking debugger to be supported is he really THIS anti choice? No better than the people he criticizes.

[Luke_Wolf]

Rule 1. Do not question the opinion of RMS. In long run he has proven to be absolutely correct, no matter how spooky or crazy what he tells sounds.

He is also not "frightened", he shared his observation and expressed concern.
I don't see him running in loops screaming!

hm...
From: http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-...#cq_guru_right

The Cult Test
1. The Guru is always right.
The Guru, his church, and his teachings are always right, and above criticism, and beyond reproach.

In some cults, the guru is dead, but the principle is the same. I use the word "guru" loosely here; in many cults the charismatic leader has the title of minister, priest, yogi, swami, prophet, or all-knowing wise man. Or even, "Chairman Mao." In any case, the leader is always right.

Likewise, the teachings of the guru are always right, and when he dies, his writings become holy scriptures, infallible and unquestionable. And the guru's church is always right, and the guru's successors are always right, and everything about the cult is always right.

[erendorn]

BSD license is not free because it allows[...]

hahaha classic newspeak

Anyway, it's funny that we have come to a time where microsoft open sources core technologies while RMS ask for a project to go out of its way not to support an open source alternative. Sad times. But possibly the reason why said alternative exists.

[bridgman]

Considering that you would have to incorporate the compiler as a library (calling an external executable would probably not be a good idea performance wise), I think this is exactly the intention of the GPL. You have to keep in mind that the aim of the FSF is a completely free (as in speech) computing environment, the idea that you want to keep some part of it proprietary is simply not part of that vision.

Yeah, that's a fair point... I suppose "freeing up surrounding programs as the price of using a GPL program" could have been part of the original vision for GPL, although when I read articles defending the "viral" aspect of GPL it was always positioned as a defensive mechanism rather than an offensive one and my impression of RMS has been that if he had intended it as an offensive mechanism he would have said so.