3 ms·

I beleive in what Stallman beleives. All the wonderful things open source gave us command gratitude for open source. And the proprietary tooling, especially fr

by arein3 4y ago

I beleive in what Stallman beleives. All the wonderful things open source gave us command gratitude for open source. And the proprietary tooling, especially from microsoft and other big corporations in a way are a honeypoy. Embrace, extend, extinguish. Do not forget microsoft called gpl cancer.

rowanG077 4y ago
Isn't the point of GPL to be cancer?
- ISO-morphism 4y ago
  The point of the GPL is to bind to the cancerous cells of copyright and neutralize them. My understanding of the position taken by GPL authors is that the current implementation of copyright in the US favors publishers heavily to the detriment of users [1], that this is unjust [2], and that users deserve certain freedoms [3]. It's not about restricting developers, it's about removing restrictions that shouldn't have been imposed on users in the first place. If public domain is one end of the spectrum, see [4] for the other end. EDIT: formatting [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html [2] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-impor... [3] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.htm... [4] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html
  - rowanG077 4y ago
    How is copyright cancerous? Copyright doesn't infect other works afaik. But GPL clearly does.
    - ISO-morphism 4y ago
      In the US, copyright infects every work at conception. No one but the author has much of a right to do anything with a work without a license. The GPL is a license - it's a subset of big C Copyright. Without Copyright the GPL is unenforceable. The GPL can't infect anything that isn't infected with the notion of Copyright. Every license, other than completely opting out of copyright and into the public domain, infects the derived work with some sort of terms. You'll see in a lot of proprietary licenses "No reverse engineering, etc." The GPL forbids you from forbidding anything except forbidding. EDIT: nuance, "much of a right to do anything" should more specifically be "anything involving distributing to other people." There exist exemptions in copyright law for using copyrighted works for your own personal use. Giving that thing to other people is no longer personal use.
- arein3 4y ago
  Not if it's in your interest. For big corporations looks like it is cancer.
pjmlp 4y ago
The FOSS community is also not keen on what Stallman believes, trying to replace each piece of GPL software with Apache/MIT/BSD alternatives, including UNIX clones. In a couple of decades the Linux kernel might be the only valuable GPL piece still around.

by arein3 4y ago

rowanG077 4y ago

Isn't the point of GPL to be cancer?

ISO-morphism 4y ago
The point of the GPL is to bind to the cancerous cells of copyright and neutralize them. My understanding of the position taken by GPL authors is that the current implementation of copyright in the US favors publishers heavily to the detriment of users [1], that this is unjust [2], and that users deserve certain freedoms [3]. It's not about restricting developers, it's about removing restrictions that shouldn't have been imposed on users in the first place. If public domain is one end of the spectrum, see [4] for the other end. EDIT: formatting [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html [2] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-impor... [3] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.htm... [4] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html
- rowanG077 4y ago
  How is copyright cancerous? Copyright doesn't infect other works afaik. But GPL clearly does.
  - ISO-morphism 4y ago
    In the US, copyright infects every work at conception. No one but the author has much of a right to do anything with a work without a license. The GPL is a license - it's a subset of big C Copyright. Without Copyright the GPL is unenforceable. The GPL can't infect anything that isn't infected with the notion of Copyright. Every license, other than completely opting out of copyright and into the public domain, infects the derived work with some sort of terms. You'll see in a lot of proprietary licenses "No reverse engineering, etc." The GPL forbids you from forbidding anything except forbidding. EDIT: nuance, "much of a right to do anything" should more specifically be "anything involving distributing to other people." There exist exemptions in copyright law for using copyrighted works for your own personal use. Giving that thing to other people is no longer personal use.
arein3 4y ago
Not if it's in your interest. For big corporations looks like it is cancer.

pjmlp 4y ago

The FOSS community is also not keen on what Stallman believes, trying to replace each piece of GPL software with Apache/MIT/BSD alternatives, including UNIX clones. In a couple of decades the Linux kernel might be the only valuable GPL piece still around.