4 ms·

>Neither of those licenses allows you to claim some code is "your own" This is a completely irrelevant statement. What was your intended purpose for making it

by asdasf 13y ago

>Neither of those licenses allows you to claim some code is "your own" This is a completely irrelevant statement. What was your intended purpose for making it? >I can easily rephrase that as GPL adds more freedoms You could, but it would what is known as "lying". I could easily say that the sky is green too, but that doesn't mean it is. >Your restriction is somebody else's freedom No, restrictions are restrictions. Words have meanings, and you don't get to just pretend they mean the opposite of what they actually mean. The GPL imposes additional restrictions. You like those restrictions because of their consequences. That is fine. But that does not make them cease to be restrictions. >I can claim anything I like Sure, but you can't expect anyone to treat you like a rational adult if you make obviously false claims and say "I can do whatever I want!" as a rationale for it.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
belorn 13y ago
That is a false statement. Please try understand copyright law when making statements about it. Copyright impose restrictions, and GPL gives permission where you do not have any. If you get sued for copyright infringement, its your job to waive the GPL as your permission to distribute. The legal permission granted in the GPL is what protect your distribution, and without it, anything requiring copyright permission is illegal. Words have meanings indeed, and the word restrictions is thus wrong, plain and simple. The GPL provide permission under a set of requirements. This is true for any software license, including BSD/MIT. So the obviously false claims are yours here, Im sorry to tell you. If you don't want to be granted permission under the license, all you need to do is stop infringing the copyright of the author. That and possible pay compensation for any current act of infringement.
- teddyh 13y ago
  You mean “wave the GPL”, not “waive the GPL”, which would be quite a different thing. (Words have meanings indeed.)
- asdasf 13y ago
  >That is a false statement. No it is not. >Please try understand copyright law when making statements about it. I understand it quite well. You are simply confused. The GPL gives you permission to do things that you couldn't do otherwise due to copyright law. But it gives you that permission under several restrictions. MIT/BSD/ISC license also give you permission to do things that you couldn't do otherwise, but does so under fewer restrictions. This is not complex or difficult to understand.
  - nkuttler 13y ago
    You see the world in black and white. You are right and everybody who disagrees is wrong, a liar, childish or confused (all direct quotes from you). I was simply going to ignore your aggressive behavior, but now that others chimed in... > MIT/BSD/ISC license also give you permission to do things that you couldn't do otherwise, but does so under fewer restrictions. Somebody takes a BSD program, extends it, and distributes binaries. This restricts my ability to inspect, improve, or extend the code. Restrictions don't have to be written into a license. You ignore those implicit restrictions and their consequences, while complaining about explicit restrictions. Anyway, I'm pretty sure you're not going to agree and just add another aggressive or insulting reply.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      No, it doesn't. Your ability inspect, improve, and extend the BSD licensed code is not affected by the release of the closed derivative, and you had no ability to do that to the closed derivative before it was created and released, so there is no meaningful sense in which that release restricts an ability you had without it. There is a huge difference between failing to give you a new ability which you don't have prior to the release and restricting an ability.
      - nkuttler 13y ago
        Thanks, I understand your reasoning, but I think we'll just have to disagree.
    - 13y ago

by asdasf 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

belorn 13y ago

That is a false statement. Please try understand copyright law when making statements about it. Copyright impose restrictions, and GPL gives permission where you do not have any. If you get sued for copyright infringement, its your job to waive the GPL as your permission to distribute. The legal permission granted in the GPL is what protect your distribution, and without it, anything requiring copyright permission is illegal. Words have meanings indeed, and the word restrictions is thus wrong, plain and simple. The GPL provide permission under a set of requirements. This is true for any software license, including BSD/MIT. So the obviously false claims are yours here, Im sorry to tell you. If you don't want to be granted permission under the license, all you need to do is stop infringing the copyright of the author. That and possible pay compensation for any current act of infringement.

teddyh 13y ago
You mean “wave the GPL”, not “waive the GPL”, which would be quite a different thing. (Words have meanings indeed.)
asdasf 13y ago
>That is a false statement. No it is not. >Please try understand copyright law when making statements about it. I understand it quite well. You are simply confused. The GPL gives you permission to do things that you couldn't do otherwise due to copyright law. But it gives you that permission under several restrictions. MIT/BSD/ISC license also give you permission to do things that you couldn't do otherwise, but does so under fewer restrictions. This is not complex or difficult to understand.
- nkuttler 13y ago
  You see the world in black and white. You are right and everybody who disagrees is wrong, a liar, childish or confused (all direct quotes from you). I was simply going to ignore your aggressive behavior, but now that others chimed in... > MIT/BSD/ISC license also give you permission to do things that you couldn't do otherwise, but does so under fewer restrictions. Somebody takes a BSD program, extends it, and distributes binaries. This restricts my ability to inspect, improve, or extend the code. Restrictions don't have to be written into a license. You ignore those implicit restrictions and their consequences, while complaining about explicit restrictions. Anyway, I'm pretty sure you're not going to agree and just add another aggressive or insulting reply.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    No, it doesn't. Your ability inspect, improve, and extend the BSD licensed code is not affected by the release of the closed derivative, and you had no ability to do that to the closed derivative before it was created and released, so there is no meaningful sense in which that release restricts an ability you had without it. There is a huge difference between failing to give you a new ability which you don't have prior to the release and restricting an ability.
    - nkuttler 13y ago
      Thanks, I understand your reasoning, but I think we'll just have to disagree.
  - 13y ago