6 ms·

What I don't understand is that the same people who get up in arms about government, and bitch and moan about "rights to the fruit of my labor", don't like the

What I don't understand is that the same people who get up in arms about government, and bitch and moan about "rights to the fruit of my labor", don't like the notion that someone else can claim those very rights by putting a gnu license on something. At that point they get all whiney about unfairness to their little business and how they could just make money if the could appropriate someone else's labor against their terms (aka the thing they hate about taxes). It's an odd cognitive dissonance.

pnathan 13y ago
Excuse me. I am an existence proof of the falsity of your statement. I don't like government much, and I do think I have a right to the fruit of my labor. And I'm more than happy to use GPL software when it is appropriate, and I'm quite happy to license my own labor out as AGPL3.
- sophacles 13y ago
  Actually, I didn't say "all". Had I said "all", your existence merely forces a modification, and at best your existence doesn't even show incorrectness had I said "vast majority". As it stands my statement could be interpreted as "all", that part was unclear. I merely meant "a lot". Your statement is a shining example of the fallacy fallacy though... just because one interpretation of what I said on a detail of it is incorrect, that in no way invalidates my statement nor the existence of vocal people like those I describe.
- quinnchr 13y ago
  Ah so if you think you have the right to the fruit of your labor, I assume that means you're a communist? That seems pretty in step with the GPL.
  - meepmorp 13y ago
    > Ah so if you think you have the right to the fruit of your labor, I assume that means you're a communist? More likely, a libertarian in the contemprary American sense of the term, though the labor theory of property is at least Lockean in vintage.
  - pnathan 13y ago
    No, I'm not. But I think that I have a certain right to what I do with myself; this right allows me to sell my services to employers. I think that there is a powerful value in sharing, however. On a physical level, the old-fashioned term is "being a good neighbor". The GPL enforces sharing contractually. There's also a powerful value in being able to fix things that you use. And the GPL enables that as well, also contractually. So I prefer the AGPL3 when possible, because I believe its values align with what I believe to be the best for society.
- bad_user 13y ago
  While I've always been happy with GPLv2 and understand why some people like GPLv3 - on the other hand AGPL should have never been accepted as either an open-source or free-software license, because it really isn't and OSI only accepted it to avoid a political conflict.
  - icebraining 13y ago
    What part of the Open Source Definition[1] does AGPL not comply with? [1]: http://opensource.org/osd http://opensource.org/osd
anonymoushn 13y ago
Taxation deprives the victim of property. Distributing derivative works of OSS does not deprive the OSS authors of anything. Distributing works that use OSS as a library does not deprive the OSS authors of anything. Running a service which does not distribute OSS but depends on the OSS internally does not deprive the OSS authors of anything. Of course, people can use whatever license they want. I personally favor licenses that maximize the rights of my users. Hopefully, though, you can now see that the combination of positions you mentioned is a consistent one.
thwarted 13y ago
the same people who get up in arms about government, and bitch and moan about "rights to the fruit of my labor", don't like the notion that someone else can claim those very rights by putting a gnu license on something I misread this at first. I think this makes the point more cogent: the same people who get up in arms about government, and bitch and moan about "rights to the fruit of my labor", don't like the notion that someone can claim "the rights to the fruit of their" labor by putting a gnu license on something

pnathan 13y ago

Excuse me. I am an existence proof of the falsity of your statement. I don't like government much, and I do think I have a right to the fruit of my labor. And I'm more than happy to use GPL software when it is appropriate, and I'm quite happy to license my own labor out as AGPL3.

sophacles 13y ago
Actually, I didn't say "all". Had I said "all", your existence merely forces a modification, and at best your existence doesn't even show incorrectness had I said "vast majority". As it stands my statement could be interpreted as "all", that part was unclear. I merely meant "a lot". Your statement is a shining example of the fallacy fallacy though... just because one interpretation of what I said on a detail of it is incorrect, that in no way invalidates my statement nor the existence of vocal people like those I describe.
quinnchr 13y ago
Ah so if you think you have the right to the fruit of your labor, I assume that means you're a communist? That seems pretty in step with the GPL.
- meepmorp 13y ago
  > Ah so if you think you have the right to the fruit of your labor, I assume that means you're a communist? More likely, a libertarian in the contemprary American sense of the term, though the labor theory of property is at least Lockean in vintage.
- pnathan 13y ago
  No, I'm not. But I think that I have a certain right to what I do with myself; this right allows me to sell my services to employers. I think that there is a powerful value in sharing, however. On a physical level, the old-fashioned term is "being a good neighbor". The GPL enforces sharing contractually. There's also a powerful value in being able to fix things that you use. And the GPL enables that as well, also contractually. So I prefer the AGPL3 when possible, because I believe its values align with what I believe to be the best for society.
bad_user 13y ago
While I've always been happy with GPLv2 and understand why some people like GPLv3 - on the other hand AGPL should have never been accepted as either an open-source or free-software license, because it really isn't and OSI only accepted it to avoid a political conflict.
- icebraining 13y ago
  What part of the Open Source Definition[1] does AGPL not comply with? [1]: http://opensource.org/osd http://opensource.org/osd

anonymoushn 13y ago

Taxation deprives the victim of property. Distributing derivative works of OSS does not deprive the OSS authors of anything. Distributing works that use OSS as a library does not deprive the OSS authors of anything. Running a service which does not distribute OSS but depends on the OSS internally does not deprive the OSS authors of anything. Of course, people can use whatever license they want. I personally favor licenses that maximize the rights of my users. Hopefully, though, you can now see that the combination of positions you mentioned is a consistent one.

thwarted 13y ago

the same people who get up in arms about government, and bitch and moan about "rights to the fruit of my labor", don't like the notion that someone else can claim those very rights by putting a gnu license on something I misread this at first. I think this makes the point more cogent: the same people who get up in arms about government, and bitch and moan about "rights to the fruit of my labor", don't like the notion that someone can claim "the rights to the fruit of their" labor by putting a gnu license on something