3 ms·

In your world, helping a friend (or a stranger) is like killing somebody? I'm glad I'm not a part of that cult.

by clarry 12y ago

jimktrains2 12y ago
> In your world, helping a friend (or a stranger) is like killing somebody? That literally makes no sense. I was responding to the assertion that the GPL isn't about freedome because it imposes limitations. Living in a free society also has limitations, as an example I used killing another, but we still consider the society free, so the argument doesn't hold water. Limitations =/= Unfree Also, I never asserted that you couldn't help someone. You're free to work on your own code or other code licensed under a license you find to be fair by your own terms. > I'm glad I'm not a part of that cult. I'm not sure what you're referring to, as I believe what I do because I chose to and have come to this position through much debate and reading; I'm not part of any group whose dogma I'm backing. I'm perfectly free to change my opinion on the matter, without repercussion. Please stop using hyperbola, ad hominems, and baseless (nay useless) analogies and please write a coherent rebuttal if you choose to debate this subject.
- clarry 12y ago
  > I was responding to the assertion that the GPL isn't about freedome because it imposes limitations. People make the example about killing because there are the conflicting freedoms of two people involved: the killer and the victim. And people make that example as if the GPLs restrictions always involved such a conflict. This is not true. The GPLs limit my freedom to do things that are not an attack on others' freedoms. For example, the freedom to combine and redistribute GPLv2 and GPLv3 licensed code. Or the freedom to share a binary with someone who needs it, without forcefully bloating the distribution with a copy of the entire source code (which that someone likely didn't ask for, doesn't need, and doesn't want to have). The alternative of providing a written offer for the source code (valid for years) can be unacceptable for me because I cannot promise to meet such a requirement -- it makes helping people out potentially very expensive and painful. Therefore my options are to 1) violate the license and lose my freedoms as per the GPLv2 death clause, or 2) not share with the person in need. I don't see how I would be violating anyone's freedom in case 1 -- but I lose mine (if I had freedom to begin with, I think that is questionable). In case 2, the GPL is definitely not helping towards ensuring freedom for either me or the person who needed my help. No, the license is just restricting both of us. > Please stop using hyperbola, ad hominems, and baseless (nay useless) analogies and please write a coherent rebuttal if you choose to debate this subject. It's useless to make a coherent rebuttal because GPL fanatics will just make some incoherent arguments about users versus developers' freedoms. Oh yeah, my freedom to help a friend is a developer freedom, and therefore does not matter. Me wanting to help a friend is like wanting to kill somebody. The society is better off without letting me do such evil. If you think this is freedom, you have such a twisted and distorted understanding of the word that you're as good as a cultist.
  - jimktrains2 12y ago
    > People make the example about killing because there are the conflicting freedoms of two people involved: the killer and the victim. And people make that example as if the GPLs restrictions always involved such a conflict. This is not true. What about the developer vs the user? That's the very conflict we're discussing here. > The GPLs limit my freedom to do things that are not an attack on others' freedoms. That depends on what you believe my freedoms are. I believe that I should have the source of anything I run; in such a case you withholding source from me is an attack on my freedom. > For example, the freedom to combine and redistribute GPLv2 and GPLv3 licensed code. Or the freedom to share a binary with someone who needs it, without forcefully bloating the distribution with a copy of the entire source code (which that someone likely didn't ask for, doesn't need, and doesn't want to have). The alternative of providing a written offer for the source code (valid for years) can be unacceptable for me because I cannot promise to meet such a requirement -- it makes helping people out potentially very expensive and painful. Therefore my options are to 1) violate the license and lose my freedoms as per the GPLv2 death clause, or 2) not share with the person in need. Two points: 1) Noöne is forcing you to use the GPL for your own work. While I would find it preferable, I would never force you to; I would simply choose not to use your software if you weren't making the source available (which you need not to under certain licenses). 2) I do not view "bloating the distribution with a copy of the entire source code" as a bad thing, and certainly not an excuse to not use the GPL. > It's useless to make a coherent rebuttal because GPL fanatics Thank you for the ad hominem > incoherent arguments about users versus developers' freedoms. You've yet to establish that the argument is incoherent, probably because, based on your first few sentences, you somehow don't believe it exists. > Oh yeah, my freedom to help a friend is a developer freedom, and therefore does not matter. You're not helping them if you're not providing the source in my opinion. You're simply band-aiding a problem at best and forcing complacency against usage of their own device at worst. > Me wanting to help a friend is like wanting to kill somebody. Again, I've literally never said this, nor implied it. > The society is better off without letting me do such evil. No, society is better off with people like you who have do believe in sharing your source, but are put off by some of the issues with the GPL. (Yes, I did just say the GPL isn't perfect.) Society is not better off when someone takes previously free code, makes it unfree, and then proceeds to use it to lock users into their system. > If you think this is freedom, you have such a twisted and distorted understanding of the word that you're as good as a cultist. Thank you again for the ad hominem and hyperbole that really don't make much sense.

In your world, helping a friend (or a stranger) is like killing somebody? I'm glad I'm not a part of that cult.

by clarry 12y ago

In your world, helping a friend (or a stranger) is like killing somebody? I'm glad I'm not a part of that cult.

> In your world, helping a friend (or a stranger) is like killing somebody? That literally makes no sense. I was responding to the assertion that the GPL isn't about freedome because it imposes limitations. Living in a free society also has limitations, as an example I used killing another, but we still consider the society free, so the argument doesn't hold water. Limitations =/= Unfree Also, I never asserted that you couldn't help someone. You're free to work on your own code or other code licensed under a license you find to be fair by your own terms. > I'm glad I'm not a part of that cult. I'm not sure what you're referring to, as I believe what I do because I chose to and have come to this position through much debate and reading; I'm not part of any group whose dogma I'm backing. I'm perfectly free to change my opinion on the matter, without repercussion. Please stop using hyperbola, ad hominems, and baseless (nay useless) analogies and please write a coherent rebuttal if you choose to debate this subject.

clarry 12y ago
> I was responding to the assertion that the GPL isn't about freedome because it imposes limitations. People make the example about killing because there are the conflicting freedoms of two people involved: the killer and the victim. And people make that example as if the GPLs restrictions always involved such a conflict. This is not true. The GPLs limit my freedom to do things that are not an attack on others' freedoms. For example, the freedom to combine and redistribute GPLv2 and GPLv3 licensed code. Or the freedom to share a binary with someone who needs it, without forcefully bloating the distribution with a copy of the entire source code (which that someone likely didn't ask for, doesn't need, and doesn't want to have). The alternative of providing a written offer for the source code (valid for years) can be unacceptable for me because I cannot promise to meet such a requirement -- it makes helping people out potentially very expensive and painful. Therefore my options are to 1) violate the license and lose my freedoms as per the GPLv2 death clause, or 2) not share with the person in need. I don't see how I would be violating anyone's freedom in case 1 -- but I lose mine (if I had freedom to begin with, I think that is questionable). In case 2, the GPL is definitely not helping towards ensuring freedom for either me or the person who needed my help. No, the license is just restricting both of us. > Please stop using hyperbola, ad hominems, and baseless (nay useless) analogies and please write a coherent rebuttal if you choose to debate this subject. It's useless to make a coherent rebuttal because GPL fanatics will just make some incoherent arguments about users versus developers' freedoms. Oh yeah, my freedom to help a friend is a developer freedom, and therefore does not matter. Me wanting to help a friend is like wanting to kill somebody. The society is better off without letting me do such evil. If you think this is freedom, you have such a twisted and distorted understanding of the word that you're as good as a cultist.
- jimktrains2 12y ago
  > People make the example about killing because there are the conflicting freedoms of two people involved: the killer and the victim. And people make that example as if the GPLs restrictions always involved such a conflict. This is not true. What about the developer vs the user? That's the very conflict we're discussing here. > The GPLs limit my freedom to do things that are not an attack on others' freedoms. That depends on what you believe my freedoms are. I believe that I should have the source of anything I run; in such a case you withholding source from me is an attack on my freedom. > For example, the freedom to combine and redistribute GPLv2 and GPLv3 licensed code. Or the freedom to share a binary with someone who needs it, without forcefully bloating the distribution with a copy of the entire source code (which that someone likely didn't ask for, doesn't need, and doesn't want to have). The alternative of providing a written offer for the source code (valid for years) can be unacceptable for me because I cannot promise to meet such a requirement -- it makes helping people out potentially very expensive and painful. Therefore my options are to 1) violate the license and lose my freedoms as per the GPLv2 death clause, or 2) not share with the person in need. Two points: 1) Noöne is forcing you to use the GPL for your own work. While I would find it preferable, I would never force you to; I would simply choose not to use your software if you weren't making the source available (which you need not to under certain licenses). 2) I do not view "bloating the distribution with a copy of the entire source code" as a bad thing, and certainly not an excuse to not use the GPL. > It's useless to make a coherent rebuttal because GPL fanatics Thank you for the ad hominem > incoherent arguments about users versus developers' freedoms. You've yet to establish that the argument is incoherent, probably because, based on your first few sentences, you somehow don't believe it exists. > Oh yeah, my freedom to help a friend is a developer freedom, and therefore does not matter. You're not helping them if you're not providing the source in my opinion. You're simply band-aiding a problem at best and forcing complacency against usage of their own device at worst. > Me wanting to help a friend is like wanting to kill somebody. Again, I've literally never said this, nor implied it. > The society is better off without letting me do such evil. No, society is better off with people like you who have do believe in sharing your source, but are put off by some of the issues with the GPL. (Yes, I did just say the GPL isn't perfect.) Society is not better off when someone takes previously free code, makes it unfree, and then proceeds to use it to lock users into their system. > If you think this is freedom, you have such a twisted and distorted understanding of the word that you're as good as a cultist. Thank you again for the ad hominem and hyperbole that really don't make much sense.