6 ms·

He's right that GPL is draconian and limits freedom. But I am not sure your point because you didn't state it. You have a drive by post where you post some cryp

by bugsy 15y ago

He's right that GPL is draconian and limits freedom. But I am not sure your point because you didn't state it. You have a drive by post where you post some cryptic excerpt that seems unrelated to the topic with no commentary. Are you a posting bot, or are you a person with a point? Speak clearly. Explain yourself. If the intent is to be critical of notch, I can't see any fault in his saying he hopes to release source code eventually and that since the GPL is such an anti-freedom license (huh, actually my words not his, but my sincere interpretation and agreement with his 'draconian' term usage), he "might just possibly" release as public domain, which means completely unencumbered and free. That sounds pretty cool. He's not under any obligation to do so though, and I don't see that many other games sold on Steam are somehow better. Or perhaps you meant to indicate that you think his true reason not to release on Steam is not what he said, but he is lying and the secret real reason is that he intends to release public domain, and for some reason Steam would not allow that after signing their draconian and freedom limiting contracts, that are as freedom limiting as the GPL. Maybe. Don't know because your post was incoherent.

wmobit 15y ago
Saying the GPL is draconian and limits freedom is like saying the 13th amendment limits freedom since it takes away your right to own slaves.
- psykotic 15y ago
  That rhetorical stance you take is particularly irksome when someone is talking about giving away their own code. He isn't whining that library X isn't under the GPL/LGPL. He's saying that'd he'd rather just give away his code entirely with no legal strings attached whatsoever.
  - wmobit 15y ago
    Such is impossible under current copyright law
    - psykotic 15y ago
      Could you be more precise? Are you repeating the "it's impossible to voluntarily place a work in the public domain" canard? There are well-established precedents in the US and Europe for authors waiving copyright. See djb's FAQ: http://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html http://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html. If you are really paranoid and want a wordy license written in legalese to the same effect, you could use CC0. There's a detailed FAQ here: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC0_FAQ http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC0_FAQ. There's also the Unlicense patterned on SQLite's public domain declaration: http://ar.to/2010/01/dissecting-the-unlicense http://ar.to/2010/01/dissecting-the-unlicense. In short, if you agree with the philosophical and practical advantages of releasing your code into the public domain, there is no excuse not do so under the guise of legal FUD.
- bugsy 15y ago
  The 13th amendment establishes the right of the state to own slaves. Technically, according to the text of the 13th amendment, it formally and legally establishes as a constitutional right of the state to declare people slaves as "punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted", which has of course resulted in prison chain gangs and various corporations hiring prisoners for cheap compliant slave labor over the years, and in the demand for such slave labor and thus the motivation of the state to imprison as many people as possible.
dkersten 15y ago
I agree with everything you said, except for the following: release as public domain, which means completely unencumbered and free In general, this is true, but some countries do not have a concept of public domain and so releasing it into the public domain would make it completely unusable to people in those countries. Personally, I would prefer either the BSD or MIT license or something like the WTFPL[1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL
- georgemcbay 15y ago
  Re: people in countries without public domain... is that a real actual problem that actually impacts people? I mean, suppose a user in Nopublicdomainistan uses some software that is released in the public domain... clearly the author is never going to come after them for a copyright violation, even if their local government doesn't recognize public domain as a concept, so what is the actual real world problem they face in this situation? I just don't see this as being a real problem.
  - nuclear_eclipse 15y ago
    I think it's seen more as a problem for a) software with multiple contributors, and b) corporations that want to use open-source software. When there's no legally-recognized guarantee of rights to users of the software, you have to implicitly trust that the original creator will not change their mind and sue you later. In cases with multiple contributors, it adds that many more unknown entities with the ability to litigate. By releasing the software under a permissive license such as MIT or BSD, or even CC0, the legal wording is there to help guarantee your rights to use the software in the face of lawsuits.
  - rmc 15y ago
    "Ah sure, us using this software is technically illegal, but sure, the original author isn't going to come after us" is usually not a good line to write on your corporate "do we have enough licences audit" The problem isn't that your might get sued, it's that you can't convince $POINTY_HAIRED_BOSS that you won't get sued.
streptomycin 15y ago
I was just amused that someone praised for being so civil and respectful and mature would make a needlessly incendiary comment about the GPL on their website. Particularly as religious debates about open source licenses are quite stereotypical of disrespectful, immature, uncivilized nerds.
- bugsy 15y ago
  I'm surprised that you are so open that you are disrespectful, immature, and uncivilized, but thanks.
  - streptomycin 15y ago
    Thanks for your posts, which very clearly validate my point that the original quoted statement was flamebait :)
atomicdog 15y ago
>GPL is draconian and limits freedom. How? Isn't the basis of GPL simply "Use this code however you want providing you make the source code you derive from it freely availble, too"?
- Pyrodogg 15y ago
  For exactly the reason you pointed out. The GPL guarantees that the code will forever be open due to the requirement that derivative works are released open and under the GPL. What this complete 'code availability' freedom limits is what you can do with the code. For example, people are perpetually free to get that source but, you aren't free to incorporate it into proprietary software. One entities freedoms can be a limit to another's freedoms.

by bugsy 15y ago

wmobit 15y ago

Saying the GPL is draconian and limits freedom is like saying the 13th amendment limits freedom since it takes away your right to own slaves.

psykotic 15y ago
That rhetorical stance you take is particularly irksome when someone is talking about giving away their own code. He isn't whining that library X isn't under the GPL/LGPL. He's saying that'd he'd rather just give away his code entirely with no legal strings attached whatsoever.
- wmobit 15y ago
  Such is impossible under current copyright law
  - psykotic 15y ago
    Could you be more precise? Are you repeating the "it's impossible to voluntarily place a work in the public domain" canard? There are well-established precedents in the US and Europe for authors waiving copyright. See djb's FAQ: http://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html http://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html. If you are really paranoid and want a wordy license written in legalese to the same effect, you could use CC0. There's a detailed FAQ here: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC0_FAQ http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC0_FAQ. There's also the Unlicense patterned on SQLite's public domain declaration: http://ar.to/2010/01/dissecting-the-unlicense http://ar.to/2010/01/dissecting-the-unlicense. In short, if you agree with the philosophical and practical advantages of releasing your code into the public domain, there is no excuse not do so under the guise of legal FUD.
bugsy 15y ago
The 13th amendment establishes the right of the state to own slaves. Technically, according to the text of the 13th amendment, it formally and legally establishes as a constitutional right of the state to declare people slaves as "punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted", which has of course resulted in prison chain gangs and various corporations hiring prisoners for cheap compliant slave labor over the years, and in the demand for such slave labor and thus the motivation of the state to imprison as many people as possible.

dkersten 15y ago

I agree with everything you said, except for the following: release as public domain, which means completely unencumbered and free In general, this is true, but some countries do not have a concept of public domain and so releasing it into the public domain would make it completely unusable to people in those countries. Personally, I would prefer either the BSD or MIT license or something like the WTFPL[1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL

georgemcbay 15y ago
Re: people in countries without public domain... is that a real actual problem that actually impacts people? I mean, suppose a user in Nopublicdomainistan uses some software that is released in the public domain... clearly the author is never going to come after them for a copyright violation, even if their local government doesn't recognize public domain as a concept, so what is the actual real world problem they face in this situation? I just don't see this as being a real problem.
- nuclear_eclipse 15y ago
  I think it's seen more as a problem for a) software with multiple contributors, and b) corporations that want to use open-source software. When there's no legally-recognized guarantee of rights to users of the software, you have to implicitly trust that the original creator will not change their mind and sue you later. In cases with multiple contributors, it adds that many more unknown entities with the ability to litigate. By releasing the software under a permissive license such as MIT or BSD, or even CC0, the legal wording is there to help guarantee your rights to use the software in the face of lawsuits.
- rmc 15y ago
  "Ah sure, us using this software is technically illegal, but sure, the original author isn't going to come after us" is usually not a good line to write on your corporate "do we have enough licences audit" The problem isn't that your might get sued, it's that you can't convince $POINTY_HAIRED_BOSS that you won't get sued.

streptomycin 15y ago

I was just amused that someone praised for being so civil and respectful and mature would make a needlessly incendiary comment about the GPL on their website. Particularly as religious debates about open source licenses are quite stereotypical of disrespectful, immature, uncivilized nerds.

bugsy 15y ago
I'm surprised that you are so open that you are disrespectful, immature, and uncivilized, but thanks.
- streptomycin 15y ago
  Thanks for your posts, which very clearly validate my point that the original quoted statement was flamebait :)

atomicdog 15y ago

>GPL is draconian and limits freedom. How? Isn't the basis of GPL simply "Use this code however you want providing you make the source code you derive from it freely availble, too"?

Pyrodogg 15y ago
For exactly the reason you pointed out. The GPL guarantees that the code will forever be open due to the requirement that derivative works are released open and under the GPL. What this complete 'code availability' freedom limits is what you can do with the code. For example, people are perpetually free to get that source but, you aren't free to incorporate it into proprietary software. One entities freedoms can be a limit to another's freedoms.