3 ms·

>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 di

>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".

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
_delirium 12y ago
> Apple is not restricting your freedom. The government is, via copyright law. When a person or company makes use of a legal process to restrict someone's freedom, I think it's fair to blame both the law and the person using it. You don't get a free pass on unethical actions just because they are currently legal in a particular jurisdiction. > You feel so entitled to other people's work I feel entitled only to freedom to use my own personal property without restriction. If I purchase a computer, I own it and can do whatever I want with it. If I buy a MacBook Pro, I can legitimately open it up, modify it, replace components, modify the installed operating system or software, etc., etc. I can also share photographs, schematics, disassemblies, and anything else I want to document this process. It's my computer. If you, Apple, or anyone else tries to get the government to stop me from doing so, you are in the wrong, even if you try to dress up your intrusion on my personal property with made-up terms like "intellectual property", EULAs, and whatever other bullshit they come up with. I do think it would be preferable to simply repeal "intellectual property" laws rather than have to try to use things like the GPL to work around them. In that world, the BSD license would be fully free, too. But licensing software as GPL is something I can do easily as an individual, while getting stupid laws repealed is considerably more difficult, so it's the pragmatic workaround for now.
- imanaccount247 12y ago
  >When a person or company makes use of a legal process to restrict someone's freedom, I think it's fair to blame both the law and the person using it They are not. You are still pretending things are backwards. They are not doing anything to you, they are simply not giving you privileges. >You don't get a free pass on unethical actions You have not made an argument to support the notion that "selling software" is an unethical action. >If I purchase a computer, I own it and can do whatever I want with it. If I buy a MacBook Pro, I can legitimately open it up, modify it, replace components, modify the installed operating system or software, etc., etc. I can also share photographs, schematics, disassemblies, and anything else I want to document this process. It's my computer. None of that is even remotely relevant. You are free to do those things. They have nothing to do with BSD licensed software. It is hard to see your red herrings get further and further from any sense of relevancy and still believe you are not being deliberately dishonest. >I do think it would be preferable to simply repeal "intellectual property" laws rather than have to try to use things like the GPL to work around them The GPL does not work around them. The GPL requires copyright law to achieve its impositions. Without copyright law, people would simply not give you the source and there would be nothing you could do about it.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

_delirium 12y ago

> Apple is not restricting your freedom. The government is, via copyright law. When a person or company makes use of a legal process to restrict someone's freedom, I think it's fair to blame both the law and the person using it. You don't get a free pass on unethical actions just because they are currently legal in a particular jurisdiction. > You feel so entitled to other people's work I feel entitled only to freedom to use my own personal property without restriction. If I purchase a computer, I own it and can do whatever I want with it. If I buy a MacBook Pro, I can legitimately open it up, modify it, replace components, modify the installed operating system or software, etc., etc. I can also share photographs, schematics, disassemblies, and anything else I want to document this process. It's my computer. If you, Apple, or anyone else tries to get the government to stop me from doing so, you are in the wrong, even if you try to dress up your intrusion on my personal property with made-up terms like "intellectual property", EULAs, and whatever other bullshit they come up with. I do think it would be preferable to simply repeal "intellectual property" laws rather than have to try to use things like the GPL to work around them. In that world, the BSD license would be fully free, too. But licensing software as GPL is something I can do easily as an individual, while getting stupid laws repealed is considerably more difficult, so it's the pragmatic workaround for now.

imanaccount247 12y ago
>When a person or company makes use of a legal process to restrict someone's freedom, I think it's fair to blame both the law and the person using it They are not. You are still pretending things are backwards. They are not doing anything to you, they are simply not giving you privileges. >You don't get a free pass on unethical actions You have not made an argument to support the notion that "selling software" is an unethical action. >If I purchase a computer, I own it and can do whatever I want with it. If I buy a MacBook Pro, I can legitimately open it up, modify it, replace components, modify the installed operating system or software, etc., etc. I can also share photographs, schematics, disassemblies, and anything else I want to document this process. It's my computer. None of that is even remotely relevant. You are free to do those things. They have nothing to do with BSD licensed software. It is hard to see your red herrings get further and further from any sense of relevancy and still believe you are not being deliberately dishonest. >I do think it would be preferable to simply repeal "intellectual property" laws rather than have to try to use things like the GPL to work around them The GPL does not work around them. The GPL requires copyright law to achieve its impositions. Without copyright law, people would simply not give you the source and there would be nothing you could do about it.