3 ms·

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

by 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

by pnathan 13y ago

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