3 ms·

>I thought that was what I was answering. But your very first words clearly state otherwise: "As I noted it's hard to prove". >Imo it's harmful for society at

>I thought that was what I was answering. But your very first words clearly state otherwise: "As I noted it's hard to prove". >Imo it's harmful for society at large because: 1. all else equal, helping to shift the proportion of returns that go to capital vs. labor is negative for society; and 2. assisting companies in building products that they will use as a basis for IP lawsuits is negative for society. This does not answer the question, it simply makes more. Why do you think those things are negative for society. And why do you think they are related to the question at hand, much less a direct result of the use of free software? >you've simply restated my "myth" to say something that to me seems equivalent No. You restated it. I did nothing of the sort. >The BSD license allows companies to take my code, and build it into software packages which they subsequently use as a basis for patent and copyright lawsuits So does the GPL. You are very mistaken if you believe that free software can remove people's right to sue others. Both in the sense that you can not remove people's right to sue and in the sense that if you could, that would not be free in any sense of the word. >That is, one "freedom" the BSD license does not restrict is a developer's "freedom" to file copyright and patent lawsuits against users of the software. There is no "developer" vs "user". They are the same thing. That is one of the fundamental facts the GPL was conceived on. You are creating a non-existent category of people who you feel should not have freedoms. Neither the BSD license or its cousins (MIT, ISC, etc) nor the GPL in any version makes any such arbitrary distinction between "developers" and "users". >The GPL is an imperfect hack to try to meet that criteria No it is not. You are both grossly misrepresenting the GPL, and attacking free software. This behavior is expected from people who oppose free software, it is appalling from people who purport to support it. >They could build things entirely from scratch and then sue users of the software. But I don't want to help make it easier. This only explains why you choose to not write free software. That is not what I asked about. I would like to know why you think free software is a negative for society. How did society lose out by apple using free software in its operating system? How did society lose out by the billions of devices out there running openssh?

_delirium 12y ago
Your post is rather rambling and hyperbolic, so I'll stick to just the part about free software and users. I suggest reading the FSF's explanation of why the GPL exists. One of the reasons is: because free software means that downstream users have the right to use and modify software. That is a freedom. The right to keep other people from using and modifying software is, by contrast, not a legitimate freedom. Invoking copyright and patent law are two common ways people attempt to use the legal system to restrict other people's use of their own computers. The GPL attempts to disarm such attack routes by requiring you to pass on, to all subsequent downstream users, the same right to use and modify the software that you yourself received. The BSD license by contrast, allows you to sue downstream users who modify the software for copyright infringement, because you didn't grant them a license. For example, OSX is built on FreeBSD, which is free software. But because it's BSD-licensed, Apple can prohibit me from distributing modified versions of OSX, and can invoke the DMCA to prevent me from reverse-engineering it in certain ways. That's a "freedom" the BSD license allows Apple to retain, to use the power of the state to restrict my freedom.
- imanaccount247 12y ago
  >Your post is rather rambling and hyperbolic My post is very direct and clear, and contains absolutely no hyperbole. Rather than make up nonsense to try to dismiss what I said, if you feel you can not respond without further embarrassing yourself then simply opt not to. The fact that you have yet to answer my very simple direct question, and instead want to try to weasel more FUD against free software in is quite telling. But now I have a new question. Since BSD licensed code is so bad for society, I assume you don't use openssh, or X Windows, or apache, or nginx, or any of the other massively important BSD licensed software millions of people benefit from? >I suggest reading the FSF's explanation of why the GPL exists. I suggest you try to be less condescending when trying to convince people to buy into your lies. >The right to keep other people from using and modifying software is, by contrast, not a legitimate freedom. Words have meaning. They still have the meaning even if you do not like it. Freedom means freedom. Not "only freedoms I approve of". Your statement is every bit as absurd as people claiming the freedom to prevent others from entering your home is not a "legitimate freedom". >The GPL attempts to disarm such attack routes by requiring you to pass on, to all subsequent downstream users, the same right to use and modify the software that you yourself received No, it passes down an obligation, not a right. Not a freedom. >The BSD license by contrast, allows you to sue downstream users who modify the software for copyright infringement No, the BSD license does not prevent you from suing people who modify your code. You have no ability to sue people for modifying the BSD licensed code. You are resorting to the oldest and most obviously incorrect FUD technique, one which even RMS has requested GPL fanatics refrain from repeating. My code that uses BSD licensed code is not the BSD licensed code I used. Nothing done to my code has any effect on the BSD licensed code. It can not be "made closed" or any such nonsense. >But because it's BSD-licensed, Apple can prohibit me from distributing modified versions of OSX, and can invoke the DMCA to prevent me from reverse-engineering it in certain ways. That would still be true if they did not use BSD licensed code. That's the point. Nothing is lost here. The only thing that changed is instead of apple writing code, they used existing code which due to age and examination is almost certainly of higher quality than anything apple could have produced in such a short time span. So users of apple software got better software, and nobody lost out on anything. Hardly seems a negative to society. >That's a "freedom" the BSD license allows Apple to retain, to use the power of the state to restrict my freedom. Apple is not restricting your freedom. The government is, via copyright law. You feel so entitled to other people's work that you conflate "someone did not grant me additional rights above and beyond those I already have" with "someone is restricting my freedom".

_delirium 12y ago

Your post is rather rambling and hyperbolic, so I'll stick to just the part about free software and users. I suggest reading the FSF's explanation of why the GPL exists. One of the reasons is: because free software means that downstream users have the right to use and modify software. That is a freedom. The right to keep other people from using and modifying software is, by contrast, not a legitimate freedom. Invoking copyright and patent law are two common ways people attempt to use the legal system to restrict other people's use of their own computers. The GPL attempts to disarm such attack routes by requiring you to pass on, to all subsequent downstream users, the same right to use and modify the software that you yourself received. The BSD license by contrast, allows you to sue downstream users who modify the software for copyright infringement, because you didn't grant them a license. For example, OSX is built on FreeBSD, which is free software. But because it's BSD-licensed, Apple can prohibit me from distributing modified versions of OSX, and can invoke the DMCA to prevent me from reverse-engineering it in certain ways. That's a "freedom" the BSD license allows Apple to retain, to use the power of the state to restrict my freedom.

imanaccount247 12y ago
>Your post is rather rambling and hyperbolic My post is very direct and clear, and contains absolutely no hyperbole. Rather than make up nonsense to try to dismiss what I said, if you feel you can not respond without further embarrassing yourself then simply opt not to. The fact that you have yet to answer my very simple direct question, and instead want to try to weasel more FUD against free software in is quite telling. But now I have a new question. Since BSD licensed code is so bad for society, I assume you don't use openssh, or X Windows, or apache, or nginx, or any of the other massively important BSD licensed software millions of people benefit from? >I suggest reading the FSF's explanation of why the GPL exists. I suggest you try to be less condescending when trying to convince people to buy into your lies. >The right to keep other people from using and modifying software is, by contrast, not a legitimate freedom. Words have meaning. They still have the meaning even if you do not like it. Freedom means freedom. Not "only freedoms I approve of". Your statement is every bit as absurd as people claiming the freedom to prevent others from entering your home is not a "legitimate freedom". >The GPL attempts to disarm such attack routes by requiring you to pass on, to all subsequent downstream users, the same right to use and modify the software that you yourself received No, it passes down an obligation, not a right. Not a freedom. >The BSD license by contrast, allows you to sue downstream users who modify the software for copyright infringement No, the BSD license does not prevent you from suing people who modify your code. You have no ability to sue people for modifying the BSD licensed code. You are resorting to the oldest and most obviously incorrect FUD technique, one which even RMS has requested GPL fanatics refrain from repeating. My code that uses BSD licensed code is not the BSD licensed code I used. Nothing done to my code has any effect on the BSD licensed code. It can not be "made closed" or any such nonsense. >But because it's BSD-licensed, Apple can prohibit me from distributing modified versions of OSX, and can invoke the DMCA to prevent me from reverse-engineering it in certain ways. That would still be true if they did not use BSD licensed code. That's the point. Nothing is lost here. The only thing that changed is instead of apple writing code, they used existing code which due to age and examination is almost certainly of higher quality than anything apple could have produced in such a short time span. So users of apple software got better software, and nobody lost out on anything. Hardly seems a negative to society. >That's a "freedom" the BSD license allows Apple to retain, to use the power of the state to restrict my freedom. Apple is not restricting your freedom. The government is, via copyright law. You feel so entitled to other people's work that you conflate "someone did not grant me additional rights above and beyond those I already have" with "someone is restricting my freedom".