PHP5 JSON Still In A Licensing Mess

[duby229]

Or rather the strength of a brick wall. The attempt here is to change my mind to make me believe something that definitely isnt true. I'll continue having the strength of a brick wall.

no need to repeat myself....

[duby229]

Ok, I can see this is going to be even harder than I thought before... look, just let me know if I'm using too big words or going too fast, ok? I don't have much experience of teaching special-needs kids.

The concept of an analogy is that you describe something by talking about something else. Often, they are used to describe abstract concepts that are difficult for slow-minded people to grasp, by comparing them to something a bit more tangible. This makes it easier for the poor, slow-minded monkeys to understand, because they find it hard to wrap their minds around abstract concepts.

If a cheeseburger is a simile for a free, then what the hell is a free?

[dee.]

He's got a point though.
If the GPL was truly 'free' in the sense of the word, then I should be free to combine code from a GNU licensed project with another FOSS project, for example, GPLv2 only and Apache v2, or AGPL and the Apple Public Source License.
Sadly, I'm not permitted to do this although all of these licenses are OSI and FSF approved.

So no, if it lacks this basic compatibility with other FOSS licenses then it can't really be defined as 'free'. Copyleft however, yes.

Sure it can. You're just mistaken on who the freedom is for.

Any law or rule that provides freedom to one party, does it by limiting the freedom of another party. There's no such thing as "freedom for all", because any freedom is achieved by limiting someone else's freedom. The freedom of me to walk on the streets without fear of being murdered is dependent on restricting other people's freedom to murder me. The freedom to own property is dependent on limiting people's freedom to steal.

The GPL provides freedom primarily to the user of the software, not to the developer. It guarantees freedom of the user (to use, examine, modify, distribute) by restricting the freedom of the developer, publisher or distributor to revoke those freedoms.

If another license is not compatible with the terms of the GPL, then it's only reasonable that GPL software shouldn't be allowed to be distributed under that license. It's a feature, not a bug. If you need license that provides compatibility with other licenses, there's the LGPL, which you can even use with proprietary projects. Different licenses suit different purposes. No one forces you to use GPL-licensed software if you can't comply with the license, and no one forces you to license your software as GPL - you have the freedom to choose to use it or not.

[duby229]

Sure it can. You're just mistaken on who the freedom is for.

Any law or rule that provides freedom to one party, does it by limiting the freedom of another party. There's no such thing as "freedom for all", because any freedom is achieved by limiting someone else's freedom. The freedom of me to walk on the streets without fear of being murdered is dependent on restricting other people's freedom to murder me. The freedom to own property is dependent on limiting people's freedom to steal.

The GPL provides freedom primarily to the user of the software, not to the developer. It guarantees freedom of the user (to use, examine, modify, distribute) by restricting the freedom of the developer, publisher or distributor to revoke those freedoms.

If another license is not compatible with the terms of the GPL, then it's only reasonable that GPL software shouldn't be allowed to be distributed under that license. It's a feature, not a bug. If you need license that provides compatibility with other licenses, there's the LGPL, which you can even use with proprietary projects. Different licenses suit different purposes. No one forces you to use GPL-licensed software if you can't comply with the license, and no one forces you to license your software as GPL - you have the freedom to choose to use it or not.

Those arent freedoms.... You're never free to kill someone. You're never free to rob someone. It's obvious to anyone. A freedom would be the freedom -from- being killed or -from- being robbed.

[dee.]

If a cheeseburger is a simile for a free, then what the hell is a free?

They are both words. Come on now, this is not that difficult. We were talking about words and their meanings.

Also, it's not a simile. A simile would be "my dick is so hard it's like a rock". When you're saying something is like something else, you're using a simile. A metaphor is when you are saying something, and it's up to the reader to infer from the context or subtext what the metaphor is describing.

Those arent freedoms.... You're never free to kill someone. You're never free to rob someone. It's obvious to anyone. A freedom would be the freedom -from- being killed or -from- being robbed.

Yes, they are freedoms - just because you don't agree with a freedom doesn't make it any less a freedom. They're just freedoms that we as a society consider not worth granting to people, other than in very special circumstances. There are times when you are free to kill someone (in self defense, if you're a soldier or a police officer, etc).

Freedom doesn't look into morality or our current laws. Some time ago, it was considered a right for the white man to keep slaves. The freedom to keep slaves was made possible only by taking away the freedom of the slaves themselves. Back then, the slaveowner's freedom was considered more important than the slave's. Now, we obviously see it differently - we consider it more important for everyone to have the freedom to not be slaves, and we do this by restricting everyone's freedom to enslave others or own slaves.

So you see, there's no such thing as absolute freedom for everyone. Any freedom for one person is dependent on limiting some other freedom for other people.

[duby229]

oppression of any kind is not a freedom. Being free from oppression is a freedom. (and theres that word free again being used in it's proper context.)

[GreatEmerald]

oppression of any kind is not a freedom. Being free from oppression is a freedom. (and theres that word free again being used in it's proper context.)

And since making software non-free is an oppression, being free from it is a freedom.

[dee.]

oppression of any kind is not a freedom. Being free from oppression is a freedom.

And you can only get that freedom by restricting others' freedoms to do whatever they want (including, to oppress you). If everyone is free to do whatever they want, that freedom also gives them the option to use it for oppression. Freedom doesn't come with any kind of built-in morality sensor. Because if it did, it would no longer be freedom, it'd just be enforced morality.

Then, if people use their freedom to do whatever they want to take away others' freedom to do whatever they want, then their freedom is incompatible with other people's freedom. Therefore, we get to the logical conclusion, that you can't have absolute freedom for everyone, because people's freedoms would conflict with each other.

An even simpler example: we can't both have the freedom to eat the same cheeseburger. If either one of us has the freedom to eat the cheeseburger, it is dependent on keeping the other one from eating that cheeseburger, because one cheeseburger can only be eaten by one person (unless we split it, but then neither of us still gets to eat the whole cheeseburger, instead both of us just eat half a cheeseburger).

Thus, we have the GPL. The GPL grants you the freedom from oppression by those who would oppress your freedom to use, examine, modify or distribute the GPL-licensed code.

[duby229]

And since making software non-free is an oppression, being free from it is a freedom.

licensing under the GPL makes it non-free. But it's still open source. Permanently open source. You can't use the word that you are describing in it's own description. Essentially all you just said was that licensing under the GPL is an oppression, being free from the GPL is a freedom.... I couldnt possibly disagree with you more, it doesnt make any sense.. There is NOTHING wrong with the GPL.

[Kivada]

What are you talking about?

I'm not blind to racism in america, it still exists of course, but it isnt nearly the problem today it used to be. There are a lot of other places in the world where racism is the law.

it was a legal analogy, that it exists doesn't one damn bit of difference to and sane judge, thus this "do no evil" clause is just as likely to be ignored by any judge with a functional brain. Thus being a license purist to the point that you would do a complete rewrite of this codebase just to avoid an imagined legal repercussion that has as much chance of happening as you do of farting your way to the moon is absolutely moronic and a completely wasted effort.