Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Netgate Announces pfSense Plus With Greater Divergence From pfSense

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Space Heater
    replied
    Originally posted by trasz View Post

    Except that this is exactly like the software changing license from Open Source to closed source. Fortunately both situations aren't really plausible in larger, community developed projects, as you'd need all the contributors to agree.
    I know it sucks you can't follow the original premise (and I did not create it), but you'll get there eventually.

    Leave a comment:


  • trasz
    replied
    Originally posted by Space Heater View Post
    Again this was about the company actually using the software with the updated license not just routing around the license change. I accept your concession.
    Except that this is exactly like the software changing license from Open Source to closed source. Fortunately both situations aren't really plausible in larger, community developed projects, as you'd need all the contributors to agree.

    Leave a comment:


  • Space Heater
    replied
    Originally posted by trasz View Post
    In such a case literally nothing would change, as the company would still use the code as licensed before. The updated license only applies to stuff that happened after the change; you cannot change the license retroactively.
    Again this was about the company actually using the software with the updated license not just routing around the license change. I accept your concession.

    Leave a comment:


  • trasz
    replied
    Originally posted by Space Heater View Post

    You're still unable to follow the original argument. The original claim was that if the license changed from permissive to copy-left, there would be no change in what the company did. In this situation, we are looking only at the differences between the licenses, everything is being held constant except for the license. Obviously this is not about how actual companies or organizations choose licenses in the real world, this is *purely* about what the licenses stipulate and what the resulting effects are. Arguing about cause and effect shows you have not understood what was being discussed.
    In such a case literally nothing would change, as the company would still use the code as licensed before. The updated license only applies to stuff that happened after the change; you cannot change the license retroactively.

    Leave a comment:


  • Space Heater
    replied
    Originally posted by trasz View Post

    Simply skimming a few posts above quickly shows this is... not particularly close to truth. You've been explained why it wouldn't make any difference (tl;dr you got the cause and result backwards).
    You're still unable to follow the original argument. The original claim was that if the license changed from permissive to copy-left, there would be no change in what the company did. In this situation, we are looking only at the differences between the licenses, everything is being held constant except for the license. Obviously this is not about how actual companies or organizations choose licenses in the real world, this is *purely* about what the licenses stipulate and what the resulting effects are. Arguing about cause and effect shows you have not understood what was being discussed.

    Leave a comment:


  • trasz
    replied
    Originally posted by Space Heater View Post
    Yes, and I explained that the GPL would make a difference, which is why they decided to not use the GPL.
    Simply skimming a few posts above quickly shows this is... not particularly close to truth. You've been explained why it wouldn't make any difference (tl;dr you got the cause and result backwards).

    Leave a comment:


  • Space Heater
    replied
    Originally posted by aht0 View Post
    No, it's you lacking any reading comprehension.
    Yes, and I explained that the GPL would make a difference, which is why they decided to not use the GPL. You then started getting upset and moving the goal posts.

    Originally posted by aht0 View Post
    You GPL fans bitch and rant and sneer about "open source" or "proprietary vendors abusing BSD without giving anything back".
    It's funny how you think I must be a GPL fan or that I hate permissive licenses. You are obsessed with putting people in camps, I don't have any dislike towards permissive licenses or FreeBSD. It's just that you are completely wrong that there is no effective difference between licenses. Why else would companies make a licensing choice (and often avoid the GPL) if there is actually no real-world difference between them? (Hint: it's because the licenses are different and do make a difference)

    Originally posted by aht0 View Post
    I brought you single example where there is no EFFECTIVE difference to vendor using linux same way and the sources it is forced to give back are still making very little difference if any. And you go off the rails trying to prove hell knows what.
    Having to release source code is the entire point, claiming that source code isn't an effective result is just coping.

    Originally posted by aht0 View Post
    If you dont know what "effective difference" means in this context, well, it's your personal shortcoming, not mine.
    It's something you don't define so that you can change the meaning at any time in order to declare all differences not effective.

    Leave a comment:


  • aht0
    replied
    Originally posted by Space Heater View Post
    The fact you think I dislike permissive licenses, or that I'm a GPL fanatic shows you have zero reading comprehension.
    No, it's you lacking any reading comprehension.

    My INITIAL POST
    Originally posted by M1kkko View Post
    And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why we need the GPL license.
    Like GPL would change a thing.

    Show me the sources for Mikrotik router's firmware..
    Its based on Linux.

    You CAN find sources for RouterOS GPL bits but without the rest of it, they might as well not be.
    You GPL fans bitch and rant and sneer about "open source" or "proprietary vendors abusing BSD without giving anything back". I brought you single example where there is no EFFECTIVE difference to vendor using linux same way and the sources it is forced to give back are still making very little difference if any. And you go off the rails trying to prove hell knows what.
    Particular vendor used GPL software, created his proprietary layer around it and it's all there is to it. You still have zero clue whats going inside that proprietary part. That "opened" portion will not help you any in seeing into "black box".

    If you dont know what "effective difference" means in this context, well, it's your personal shortcoming, not mine.

    Leave a comment:


  • Space Heater
    replied
    Originally posted by aht0 View Post
    It's pointless trying to reason with ideological fanatics.
    The fact you think I dislike permissive licenses, or that I'm a GPL fanatic shows you have zero reading comprehension.

    Leave a comment:


  • aht0
    replied
    It's pointless trying to reason with ideological fanatics.

    Do you even realize that entire question of whether some company is being able to use some code or not for its proprietary products, whether its good or bad etc. can be logically reduced to simple ethics.
    YOU see things solely with YOUR particular set of moral values (or their lack) in mind: "stealing is bad". OR alternatively: ME? I had nothing to do with developing that code but, Hell, I dont want nobody to profit from it.

    That's the whole basic question GPL and BSD arguments can be reduced to. GPL fans have one set of values, BSD fans have their own set of values.
    Whole problem for me is, GPL fans try to impose their views and preferences to ME with aggressive propaganda and hate campaigns.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X