No announcement yet.

Please ban CthuIhux

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    Originally posted by CthuIhux View Post
    Please elaborate on what you mean by that.
    No problem, the GPL is just a license, nothing more, nothing less. Linux is just a kernel, nothing more, nothing less. Freedom is a state of mind or even a physical state, but neither a license or a kernel.

    GPL has preserved the freedom of countless numbers of developers, users and software and it has spawned businesses based on free and open source software and millions of high quality, reliable free and open software freely downloadable from the internet with low or no cost and with no DRMs and BDSM user agreements.
    No one is denying that. I wonder why you BSD haters always think that someone who isn't a BSD hater automatically must be a GPL hater?
    1. BSD is responsible for Apple's rise and behaviour
    2. BSD is responsible for Microsoft rise and behaviour (They gave their TCP/IP)
    3. BSD is responsible for DRMs
    4. BSD is responsible for binary blobs
    5. BSD is responsible for Windows 8
    6. BSD is responsible for lack of drivers in Linux
    7. BSD is responsible for UEFI restricted booting
    8. BSD is responsible for millions under bondage to M$ and Apple
    9. BSD is responsible for the problems faced by free and open source projects
    10. BSD is responsible for holding back free and open source projects
    11. BSD is responsible for todays proprietary software
    This bullshit isn't even worth a comment.

    Let me repeat,
    Repeating a lie doesn't make it true.
    Look at the BSD license, if you place a modification that is GPL or proprietary on BSD licensed code, it becomes GPL or proprietary. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD.
    I understand that without a problem. Your real problem lies here:
    There are formally BSD licensed code in the GNU tools but GNU licensed modifications have been added which make the entire code GPL (absolutely no BSD)
    You are to dumb to understand that putting BSD licensed code into a GPL project does not change the license for it at all. Only the copyright holder can change the license, not some random developer that puts that code into some random project. That actually is the problem for BSD licensed projects, they can't use GPL licensed code in their projects.

    So basically you have shown here that you don't even understand the simple BSD licenses, which actually makes all your posts about licenses void of any relevant information, together with your conclusions from your irrelevant "information".


    • #22
      Originally posted by Nobu View Post
      Here's an idea: bsd, linux, mac, and windows users and developers are actually people, have a life, and need to get things done. Their choice of operating system has something to do with that need, and nothing to do with religion or politics, and they could (and probably do) care less about your worthless squabbles about which license is better.

      Here's another: Both GPL and BSD style licenses promote freedom, but each a different kind of freedom. Both kinds of freedom are useful and needed in order for society (as it is today) to function. If you want to make GPL become used wide-spread or stop BSD from being "abused" by companies, you should start by talking with companies and law-makers instead of arguing with your fellow free and open source software friends.

      I, for one, have never been punched by a BSD user because I contribute to GPL software, or vice versa. Maybe it's because they have more sense than any of the number of trolls you'll find on the internet put together. Take that how you will.
      Best answer.