SF Conservancy Speaks Out Against Developer Doing GPL Enforcement For Financial Gain

[chithanh]

Back to topic, I think the SF Conservancy's position is nonsense.

It is fully ok to have GPL software dual-licensed and make companies pay to use it under different terms. This is precisely what this particular developer does.

Of course he can only license his own code, so the company who violated the GPL manoeuvred into some kind of bad position by doing so.

[starshipeleven]

Did you bother trying to read the links I provided at all?

I have no reason to, as I never claimed guerrilla is new and I know history already.

[starshipeleven]

It is fully ok to have GPL software dual-licensed and make companies pay to use it under different terms. This is precisely what this particular developer does.

Wat?
Everyone talks about him going to courts about GPL violations and then trying to profit off that.

Where did you get that he relicensed a part of the source code of a larger GPLed program? Does it even make sense at all?

[duby229]

I have no reason to, as I never claimed guerrilla is new and I know history already.

You're trying to tell me that I have to take some blue pill you imagined and then you agree with me? WTF? Even after you admit you didn't even bother looking for the facts. Idiot.

[starshipeleven]

You're trying to tell me that I have to take some blue pill you imagined and then you agree with me? WTF? Even after you admit you didn't even bother looking for the facts. Idiot.

I'm not agreeing with you, my point never ever had anything whatsoever to do with the time guerrilla warfare was invented.

[duby229]

I'm not agreeing with you, my point never ever had anything whatsoever to do with the time guerrilla warfare was invented.

So you have no point and you are just arguing? What the dill?

[starshipeleven]

So you have no point and you are just arguing? What the dill?

Huh? if you cannot understand what I said is your own problem.
I said "redcoats as any 17th century military were not trained to counter guerrilla in any shape or form, plus there were long supply lines to the homeland (best situation for guerrilla), plus other stuff, and that neither of these conditions are present now"

You retort with "guerrilla is not new".

Lolwhut bro?

[duby229]

Huh? if you cannot understand what I said is your own problem.
I said "redcoats as any 17th century military were not trained to counter guerrilla in any shape or form, plus there were long supply lines to the homeland (best situation for guerrilla), plus other stuff, and that neither of these conditions are present now"

You retort with "guerrilla is not new".

Lolwhut bro?

Am I supposed to interpret your words any other way than what you said? You make 1 false assumption there and try to make it sound like it was 2 points you made. I attempted, unfortunately unsuccessfully, to address the single underlying false assumption. How many superior forces have there been throughout history? You think that because we have modern technology now we have some sort of advantage, but I say to you it disadvantages us. Ancient guerilla tactics can defeat modern technology.

[starshipeleven]

Ancient guerilla tactics can defeat modern technology.

I said that this is true ONLY if other conditions are met too. Guerrilla isn't a I WIN button, it did also fail (many many times) in the past too.

The conditions that were crucial back then were:
-lack of counter-insurgency training/intel/and so on
-very long supply lines to the homeland
-other external assistence (French mostly, they provided supplies, artillery and navy support as they had large interests in weakening the british, also Spain did provide assistence). This is very very important. Guerrilla without external assistance almost always ends badly.

These conditions are not true in your proposal:
-now they have modern training, technology and so on to counter insurgents and centuries of experience in doing so.
-there is no long supply lines, they can deploy crushing numbers of whatever within hours in any point the insurgents show up, and hold the position for months on end. No, don't pull the "250 millions riflemen" bs again even assuming you got so much people on your side (you're ignoring large amounts of black people and hispanics that are NOT going to join redneck whites in this), it's highly unlikely you can get more than a fraction of that on any specific hotspot because you don't have the logistics support that military has. Not to mention that you also need to find food for the insurgent forces if you want them to hold the position for anything more than a few days.
-there is no meaningful external assistence of any kind as no external nation has interest in the US toppling (for example China has bought large amounts of US debt, they don't want to see that cash vanish, they wanted to control the US, not destroy it)

I suggest to look up cases where guerrilla was used in the same conditions, and see what happened (tl,dr: they failed)
Go look up Ninjas (that were guerrilla) and good ol' Robin Hood. Did they do anything noteworthy? Nope. They were very cool, but not effective.

[duby229]

I said that this is true ONLY if other conditions are met too. Guerrilla isn't a I WIN button, it did also fail (many many times) in the past too.

The conditions that were crucial back then were:
-lack of counter-insurgency training/intel/and so on
-very long supply lines to the homeland
-other external assistence (French mostly, they provided supplies, artillery and navy support as they had large interests in weakening the british, also Spain did provide assistence). This is very very important. Guerrilla without external assistance almost always ends badly.

These conditions are not true in your proposal:
-now they have modern training, technology and so on to counter insurgents and centuries of experience in doing so.
-there is no long supply lines, they can deploy crushing numbers of whatever within hours in any point the insurgents show up, and hold the position for months on end. No, don't pull the "250 millions riflemen" bs again even assuming you got so much people on your side (you're ignoring large amounts of black people and hispanics that are NOT going to join redneck whites in this), it's highly unlikely you can get more than a fraction of that on any specific hotspot because you don't have the logistics support that military has. Not to mention that you also need to find food for the insurgent forces if you want them to hold the position for anything more than a few days.
-there is no meaningful external assistence of any kind as no external nation has interest in the US toppling (for example China has bought large amounts of US debt, they don't want to see that cash vanish, they wanted to control the US, not destroy it)

I suggest to look up cases where guerrilla was used in the same conditions, and see what happened (tl,dr: they failed)
Go look up Ninjas (that were guerrilla) and good ol' Robin Hood. Did they do anything noteworthy? Nope. They were very cool, but not effective.

Out of all the nations in the world the US has -the- most powerful native might, and not by a little bit, by a whole lot. Even if a nation could overwhelm our naval might and land forces here, our native might would absolutely crush them. There is no nation in this world that could stand up to americans on our own soil, not even our own nation. I already gave one example in the american revolution, where we were invaded, we defeated the invaders, we developed our own logistics, trained our own forces, and ultimately won.

Tell the Vietnamese during american occupation, or Afgans during soviet occupation, or Chinese during japanese occupation that they had no chance of winning. Guess what they all did though? That's right they won. Don't underestimate a countries native might, especially when they have the home turf advantage.