4 ms·

wow. I honestly thought that when I heard that argument on 4chan, that the people on the other end making that argument were aware how crazy their line of think

wow. I honestly thought that when I heard that argument on 4chan, that the people on the other end making that argument were aware how crazy their line of thinking was. This was the last place I expected to see that sentiment reiterated. You live in a society of laws, that guarantees your freedom. BSD and MIT do not guarantee your freedom. They are free in a purely anarchist sense. This is not a good thing™.

olgeni 14y ago
> They are free in a purely anarchist sense. This is not a good thing™. ?
- mtgx 14y ago
  Anarchy = "freedom" to kill someone, etc Democracy = freedom to do what you want, as long as you don't infringe on other people's rights/freedoms. So I think he wants to say GPL is more like democracy from this point of view, while MIT is more like anarchy, where everyone can do whatever they want with it (both good and bad).
  - dragonwriter 14y ago
    > So I think he wants to say GPL is more like democracy from this point of view The GPL certainly is more authoritarian and less like anarchy, but I don't recall public open-to-all-citizens elections for either FSF leadership or the specific content of the GPL, so its not very much like direct or representative democracy. More like ideological autocracy, which is great if you agree 100% with both the ideology and strategy of the revolutionary vanguard, not so much otherwise.
wslh 14y ago
What stcredzero says is logically right: it restricts the freedom for contributing and licensing your own work in the next hop. I am not saying that GPL is bad, I am arguing that in complex scenarios this is not the right choice.
- GhotiFish 14y ago
  I don't know if the situation is really that complex. The GPL and it's code base exist to push the world towards the correct state of being. That feeling of wanting to use a GPL library, but not being able to open source your code feels awful, I know, but that feeling is there to get you to ask "Why cant I open source my code?" not "Why is the GPL restricting me?"
  - profquail 14y ago
    I've released all of my open-source code -- with the exception of one project (LGPL, because it was a direct port of another LGPL'd library) -- under permissive licenses like Apache 2.0 or modified BSD. What I really dislike about that feeling you describe is when I think of a good project I'd like to build, but which would require the use of a GPL'd library -- therefore requiring me to license my code under the GPL. Every time that's come up, I've just opted not to create the project; in my mind, I just can't justify writing open-source code that's "free" instead of free.
  - pyre 14y ago
    | The GPL and it's code base exist to push | the world towards the correct state of | being. Whose 'correct state of being?' Would you accept the 'correct state of being' that a jihadist believes in?
  - stcredzero 14y ago
    > The GPL and it's code base exist to push the world towards the correct state of being. You mean a particular point of view on "The correct state of being." What if I don't necessarily agree. Am I not free because my POV is not "correct?"
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
randallsquared 14y ago
Not sure if using trademark symbol for emphasis or trying to make a point about trademarks in an anarchist society... :) In any case, the public domain is free in an anarchist sense; BSD and MIT certainly are not.
duairc 14y ago
You are really misinformed about anarchism.
dragonwriter 14y ago
> You live in a society of laws, that guarantees your freedom. BSD and MIT do not guarantee your freedom. T Neither does any license, because licenses aren't laws -- they bind only those people who choose to be bound by them. And that's the big problem with the GPL, it really wants to be a set of laws for how software is licensed (and, from GPLv3, what features hardware is allowed to have, etc.), rather than just a software license, and that doesn't work unless you actually get something adopted by a legislature, rather than sticking it in a license. BSD/MIT, however, are better at making the software I distribute usable to people downstream, including those who would also share their own work under similar terms. Sure, that also includes those who wouldn't, so with BSD/MIT, the public ends up with potentially a smaller share of a much larger pie than with GPL, but still more given back in total often.

olgeni 14y ago

> They are free in a purely anarchist sense. This is not a good thing™. ?

mtgx 14y ago
Anarchy = "freedom" to kill someone, etc Democracy = freedom to do what you want, as long as you don't infringe on other people's rights/freedoms. So I think he wants to say GPL is more like democracy from this point of view, while MIT is more like anarchy, where everyone can do whatever they want with it (both good and bad).
- dragonwriter 14y ago
  > So I think he wants to say GPL is more like democracy from this point of view The GPL certainly is more authoritarian and less like anarchy, but I don't recall public open-to-all-citizens elections for either FSF leadership or the specific content of the GPL, so its not very much like direct or representative democracy. More like ideological autocracy, which is great if you agree 100% with both the ideology and strategy of the revolutionary vanguard, not so much otherwise.

wslh 14y ago

What stcredzero says is logically right: it restricts the freedom for contributing and licensing your own work in the next hop. I am not saying that GPL is bad, I am arguing that in complex scenarios this is not the right choice.

GhotiFish 14y ago
I don't know if the situation is really that complex. The GPL and it's code base exist to push the world towards the correct state of being. That feeling of wanting to use a GPL library, but not being able to open source your code feels awful, I know, but that feeling is there to get you to ask "Why cant I open source my code?" not "Why is the GPL restricting me?"
- profquail 14y ago
  I've released all of my open-source code -- with the exception of one project (LGPL, because it was a direct port of another LGPL'd library) -- under permissive licenses like Apache 2.0 or modified BSD. What I really dislike about that feeling you describe is when I think of a good project I'd like to build, but which would require the use of a GPL'd library -- therefore requiring me to license my code under the GPL. Every time that's come up, I've just opted not to create the project; in my mind, I just can't justify writing open-source code that's "free" instead of free.
- pyre 14y ago
  | The GPL and it's code base exist to push | the world towards the correct state of | being. Whose 'correct state of being?' Would you accept the 'correct state of being' that a jihadist believes in?
- stcredzero 14y ago
  > The GPL and it's code base exist to push the world towards the correct state of being. You mean a particular point of view on "The correct state of being." What if I don't necessarily agree. Am I not free because my POV is not "correct?"
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

randallsquared 14y ago

Not sure if using trademark symbol for emphasis or trying to make a point about trademarks in an anarchist society... :) In any case, the public domain is free in an anarchist sense; BSD and MIT certainly are not.

duairc 14y ago

You are really misinformed about anarchism.

dragonwriter 14y ago

> You live in a society of laws, that guarantees your freedom. BSD and MIT do not guarantee your freedom. T Neither does any license, because licenses aren't laws -- they bind only those people who choose to be bound by them. And that's the big problem with the GPL, it really wants to be a set of laws for how software is licensed (and, from GPLv3, what features hardware is allowed to have, etc.), rather than just a software license, and that doesn't work unless you actually get something adopted by a legislature, rather than sticking it in a license. BSD/MIT, however, are better at making the software I distribute usable to people downstream, including those who would also share their own work under similar terms. Sure, that also includes those who wouldn't, so with BSD/MIT, the public ends up with potentially a smaller share of a much larger pie than with GPL, but still more given back in total often.