4 ms·

I am fine with you not taking me seriously. I understand the "free as in free beer" definition of free (gratis vs libre) FSF and others deceptively propagate, j

I am fine with you not taking me seriously. I understand the "free as in free beer" definition of free (gratis vs libre) FSF and others deceptively propagate, just because you call it free doesn't make it actually free. That concept would have been fine, if they didn't drag the law into it and made it a legal burden. A person either owns or doesn't own something. A person either enters a licensing contract or they don't. When I download a piece of source code from github, I did not agree to any license, even if you include LICENSE.txt. Despite what the law says, i did not enter into any agreement of any kind with anyone. When that software is in my possession it is mine. Any attempt to deprive of my rights over my property, I'll classify it as the same scummy practice as DMCA threatening corporations. You don't get to criticize apple and microsoft for keeping things closed source, and preventing you from doing whatever you want with your own hardware and software, and then tell other people your software is free but you can do the same things that caused you to despise those corporations to begin with. In short, I understand the distinction fine, I just happen to despise it. It is a backhanded fence-sitting litigious mindset. that was my original question though, I guess enough people like you exist, I just couldn't believe it initially.

47282847 7mo ago
Your style of arguing makes it very difficult to engage with. Who are “people like me”? You know nothing about me or my opinions. I didn’t state them. You seem to be reading a lot more into what I wrote than what I actually did. And no your claim that you know what freedoms FSF are talking about and at the same time wrongly referring to “free as in free beer” doesn’t demonstrate that you actually reflected on the freedoms they’re arguing for, nor on why copyright exists in the first place and how your idea of “anything that has been published I am totally free to use” may be a political goal, but it’s not how the world works. Oh and I am not sure if you’re aware that you can ASK people what they mean before throwing around insinuations and judgments based on some inner fantasy of the person you’re talking to.
- notepad0x90 7mo ago
  > Who are “people like me”? You know nothing about me or my opinions. I'm sorry, but you stated your opinion and views before and you just did again, people who believe this are people like you: > nor on why copyright exists in the first place and how your idea of “anything that has been published I am totally free to use” may be a political goal, but it’s not how the world works > Your style of arguing makes it very difficult to engage with. Is it because I said "people like you"? If you took that as a personal attack, I apologize, by that I meant people that have the same mindset and views as you do. We're debating different views and legalities here after all. > that you actually reflected on the freedoms they’re arguing for I think you're just accusing me of things you're not doing. I can only post so many walls of text to explain my views and deep reflections. You're very quick to dismiss my view as being shallow simply because in your view the majority opinion is well thought out and anything opposing it must be dismissed. I argued for my personal and individual rights to property, natural rights so to speak which are more important to me than the pseudo-freedom of software people like you (i hope that term is ok now that I clarified what I mean) eschew. > but it’s not how the world works The world works how we make it work. The world works the way it does because people like you dismiss any attempt to change it, just like now. I have no illusion that anytime in my lifetime copyright laws will vanish. But that doesn't mean I'll give up pointing out the silliness of it all and the grand robbery of our most fundamental rights. > Oh and I am not sure if you’re aware that you can ASK people what they mean before throwing around insinuations and judgments based on some inner fantasy of the person you’re talking to. I think you're in severe need of a mirror, you're upset because I said "people like me", you're repeating your views, and I'm attacking them repeatedly, but you keep trying to make this debate about my shallow thinking or insinuations, instead of sticking to the merits of the view points being debated. My view is neither unique nor original for the record. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citizen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_M... > Article II – The goal of any political association is the conservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, safety and resistance against oppression. > Article XVII – Property being an inviolable and sacred right, no one can be deprived of private usage, if it is not when the public necessity, legally noted, evidently requires it, and under the condition of a just and prior indemnity. I won't ask you to "reflect", but don't ask me to surrender my rights so that you can force someone to do things with their source code. Successful public domain projects exist. And please read my sibling comment here about how the current copyleft thinking has gotten bigtech entrenched in open source, robbing us of our choices and liberties in the process.

47282847 7mo ago

Your style of arguing makes it very difficult to engage with. Who are “people like me”? You know nothing about me or my opinions. I didn’t state them. You seem to be reading a lot more into what I wrote than what I actually did. And no your claim that you know what freedoms FSF are talking about and at the same time wrongly referring to “free as in free beer” doesn’t demonstrate that you actually reflected on the freedoms they’re arguing for, nor on why copyright exists in the first place and how your idea of “anything that has been published I am totally free to use” may be a political goal, but it’s not how the world works. Oh and I am not sure if you’re aware that you can ASK people what they mean before throwing around insinuations and judgments based on some inner fantasy of the person you’re talking to.

notepad0x90 7mo ago
> Who are “people like me”? You know nothing about me or my opinions. I'm sorry, but you stated your opinion and views before and you just did again, people who believe this are people like you: > nor on why copyright exists in the first place and how your idea of “anything that has been published I am totally free to use” may be a political goal, but it’s not how the world works > Your style of arguing makes it very difficult to engage with. Is it because I said "people like you"? If you took that as a personal attack, I apologize, by that I meant people that have the same mindset and views as you do. We're debating different views and legalities here after all. > that you actually reflected on the freedoms they’re arguing for I think you're just accusing me of things you're not doing. I can only post so many walls of text to explain my views and deep reflections. You're very quick to dismiss my view as being shallow simply because in your view the majority opinion is well thought out and anything opposing it must be dismissed. I argued for my personal and individual rights to property, natural rights so to speak which are more important to me than the pseudo-freedom of software people like you (i hope that term is ok now that I clarified what I mean) eschew. > but it’s not how the world works The world works how we make it work. The world works the way it does because people like you dismiss any attempt to change it, just like now. I have no illusion that anytime in my lifetime copyright laws will vanish. But that doesn't mean I'll give up pointing out the silliness of it all and the grand robbery of our most fundamental rights. > Oh and I am not sure if you’re aware that you can ASK people what they mean before throwing around insinuations and judgments based on some inner fantasy of the person you’re talking to. I think you're in severe need of a mirror, you're upset because I said "people like me", you're repeating your views, and I'm attacking them repeatedly, but you keep trying to make this debate about my shallow thinking or insinuations, instead of sticking to the merits of the view points being debated. My view is neither unique nor original for the record. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citizen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_M... > Article II – The goal of any political association is the conservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, safety and resistance against oppression. > Article XVII – Property being an inviolable and sacred right, no one can be deprived of private usage, if it is not when the public necessity, legally noted, evidently requires it, and under the condition of a just and prior indemnity. I won't ask you to "reflect", but don't ask me to surrender my rights so that you can force someone to do things with their source code. Successful public domain projects exist. And please read my sibling comment here about how the current copyleft thinking has gotten bigtech entrenched in open source, robbing us of our choices and liberties in the process.