5 ms·

> ... to recreate the GPL software under a more liberal (say BSD or MIT) license .... BSD or MIT are more liberal?? The reality is that there is nothing calle

by pksadiq 10y ago

> ... to recreate the GPL software under a more liberal (say BSD or MIT) license .... BSD or MIT are more liberal?? The reality is that there is nothing called 'absolute freedom or liberty.' Freedom may be defined as the terms that are acceptable to the whole community, not as an individual. Say for example, GNU GPL Freedom translated to real life: I can't kill you, so you shouldn't kill others. and the same terms for MIT/BSD: I'm letting you alive, but it is Okay for you to kill others (including me). Which one (GPL vs others) do you now think is more liberal?

Nomentatus 10y ago
I'll see you one Philosophy degree, and raise you some years graduate level work in Philosophy. Your liberty doesn't include grabbing my hardware and software patents, thanks so very much. Liberty of use is a solved problem - it's the public domain, which MIT and BSD come very close to.
- pksadiq 10y ago
  > Your liberty doesn't include grabbing my hardware and software patents, thanks so very much. Liberty of use is a solved problem - it's the public domain, which MIT and BSD come very close to. If you think carefully on what you have said, you are contradicting yourself. How are you sure that you won't get sued for the patents used in the MIT software/library you use in your (proprietary) software (even if the original software developers are the patent owners)? In fact, GNU GPLv3 prohibits that, and ensures that you won't get sued for the patents from the original authors. I recommend you better get a lawyer, rather than saying that 'MIT/BSD is simple.' btw, IANYL, and IANAL. :) Thank you. Edit: Some says, there is implicit patent protection for MIT/BSD. But afaik, it is never tested in court. GNU GPL v3 gives explicit patent protection. Be at the safe side if you doubt. Edit2: If you agree with "there is an implicit patent protection for MIT/BSD" that means it "includes giving away (partially) your hardware and software patents." If then, why would you use MIT/BSD Rather than doing a GNU GPLv3+/non-free dual licensing (as do Qt or Odoo do), which would better serve your business?
  - Nomentatus 10y ago
    No, GPL doesn't ensure you won't get sued by patent-holders; only contributors who are patent holders. There is no implicit patent grant that comes along with MIT/BSD licenses. "THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT."
- flukus 10y ago
  Patents themselves are a violation of my/everyone's liberty. A patent limits what I can do because you've been granted a monopoly on it. And worse than the GPL, it's not something I'm opting in to.
  - Nomentatus 10y ago
    I'm beginning to think that all the talk from GPLers that isn't "there shouldn't be any intellectual property of any kind" is just a smokescreen. Really the whole point is that patents shouldn't exist, copyrights shouldn't exist, and maybe money should be abolished at the same time. See "economic history" for the rejoinder.
    - belorn 10y ago
      In the same way that a non-profit organization can still use money and sell t-shirts, so will GPL use concepts like copyright to achive their own goal. Of course, the purpose of non-profit is not to earn profit, and similar the goal of GPL is not to maximize copyright.
      - Nomentatus 10y ago
        Not a disagreement. Your statement is also consistent with the real aim being abolishing IP altogether - if so, maybe the T-Shirts should say that. Of course, this discussion is a small sample size, and I don't doubt that those with the most extreme views are also more motivated to share them. (If that isn't "Somebody's Law", it probably should be.) So for now I'll assume GPLers are not Levelers.
- belorn 10y ago
  I raise you graduate level work in Philosophy and simply add some basic negative freedoms that is clearly missing. Liberty is one where the rules are common to everyone, and a government granted monopoly of limited time (a patent) is the opposite of such rule. A patent is no more "yours" than radio frequency (which is part of nature) can be "yours".
  - Nomentatus 10y ago
    That's not a raise, that's a call. If you want to raise philosophical arguments that abolish all patents; be my guest (I'll just go all phenomenalist and Buddhist and abolish all other property including human bodies), but the rest of us will pay more attention to the last few centuries of economic history, which favor nations that enforce patents.

by pksadiq 10y ago

Nomentatus 10y ago

I'll see you one Philosophy degree, and raise you some years graduate level work in Philosophy. Your liberty doesn't include grabbing my hardware and software patents, thanks so very much. Liberty of use is a solved problem - it's the public domain, which MIT and BSD come very close to.

pksadiq 10y ago
> Your liberty doesn't include grabbing my hardware and software patents, thanks so very much. Liberty of use is a solved problem - it's the public domain, which MIT and BSD come very close to. If you think carefully on what you have said, you are contradicting yourself. How are you sure that you won't get sued for the patents used in the MIT software/library you use in your (proprietary) software (even if the original software developers are the patent owners)? In fact, GNU GPLv3 prohibits that, and ensures that you won't get sued for the patents from the original authors. I recommend you better get a lawyer, rather than saying that 'MIT/BSD is simple.' btw, IANYL, and IANAL. :) Thank you. Edit: Some says, there is implicit patent protection for MIT/BSD. But afaik, it is never tested in court. GNU GPL v3 gives explicit patent protection. Be at the safe side if you doubt. Edit2: If you agree with "there is an implicit patent protection for MIT/BSD" that means it "includes giving away (partially) your hardware and software patents." If then, why would you use MIT/BSD Rather than doing a GNU GPLv3+/non-free dual licensing (as do Qt or Odoo do), which would better serve your business?
- Nomentatus 10y ago
  No, GPL doesn't ensure you won't get sued by patent-holders; only contributors who are patent holders. There is no implicit patent grant that comes along with MIT/BSD licenses. "THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT."
flukus 10y ago
Patents themselves are a violation of my/everyone's liberty. A patent limits what I can do because you've been granted a monopoly on it. And worse than the GPL, it's not something I'm opting in to.
- Nomentatus 10y ago
  I'm beginning to think that all the talk from GPLers that isn't "there shouldn't be any intellectual property of any kind" is just a smokescreen. Really the whole point is that patents shouldn't exist, copyrights shouldn't exist, and maybe money should be abolished at the same time. See "economic history" for the rejoinder.
  - belorn 10y ago
    In the same way that a non-profit organization can still use money and sell t-shirts, so will GPL use concepts like copyright to achive their own goal. Of course, the purpose of non-profit is not to earn profit, and similar the goal of GPL is not to maximize copyright.
    - Nomentatus 10y ago
      Not a disagreement. Your statement is also consistent with the real aim being abolishing IP altogether - if so, maybe the T-Shirts should say that. Of course, this discussion is a small sample size, and I don't doubt that those with the most extreme views are also more motivated to share them. (If that isn't "Somebody's Law", it probably should be.) So for now I'll assume GPLers are not Levelers.
belorn 10y ago
I raise you graduate level work in Philosophy and simply add some basic negative freedoms that is clearly missing. Liberty is one where the rules are common to everyone, and a government granted monopoly of limited time (a patent) is the opposite of such rule. A patent is no more "yours" than radio frequency (which is part of nature) can be "yours".
- Nomentatus 10y ago
  That's not a raise, that's a call. If you want to raise philosophical arguments that abolish all patents; be my guest (I'll just go all phenomenalist and Buddhist and abolish all other property including human bodies), but the rest of us will pay more attention to the last few centuries of economic history, which favor nations that enforce patents.