4 ms·

If you don't like their conditions for using it, then don't fucking use it. Why do you feel entitled to use other people's work without adhering to their condit

by s73v3r 12y ago

If you don't like their conditions for using it, then don't fucking use it. Why do you feel entitled to use other people's work without adhering to their conditions?

MaulingMonkey 12y ago
> Why do you feel entitled to use other people's work without adhering to their conditions? I don't see where paulhauggis is claiming he's entitled to use other people's work without adhering to their conditions. Can you point out that claim explicitly for me? (edit: removed a stray nonsensical "it" for clarity) > If you don't like their conditions for using it, then don't fucking use it. This is what I generally do when it comes to GPLed libraries. Even closed source APIs generally grant me more "freedom" as a developer in how I redistribute my own programs invoking those APIs. But hey, it's their right to release GPLed software. I make use of some GPLed software (generally only as a user, not a developer) and thank their developers for their contributions. ...but I don't think it's outrageous to find their definition of "free" a little odd, I get why it can be hard to follow their line of reasoning, and don't see the harm in trying to dig into the reasoning behind using the GPL over, say, a more permissive license such as MIT. Personally, I'm more inclined to release under permissive licenses - but this is your chance to convince paulhauggis of the merits of the former, no?
paulhauggis 12y ago
This is exactly why I don't use any GNU code in any of my projects. I am just sick of people claiming it is "free" when it's actually a lure to get companies to use the code for free and then get bitten in the ass in the end by having to release proprietary code. Why is it that whenever I bring up this point, the words "theft" and "stealing" are used by many. However, when we are talking about copyright infringement, I am instantly corrected when I try to use those words to describe essentially the exact same practice?? (people here have even said it is their 'right' to freely copy copyrighted material). "If you don't like their conditions for using it, then don't fucking use it. Why do you feel entitled to use other people's work without adhering to their conditions?" So, it's not about giving and happiness anymore and happiness is it? Giving out software for free and then getting angry and going after someone in court when they don't use it to your liking is not freedom in my mind. I release all of my software under the BSD license. It's true freedom because I don't care what you do with it. It's a true unselfish act. The GNU is just Stallman's attempt to destroy the commercial software industry, tie up our courts with ridiculous GNU violations, and essentially socialize it (a few years back, he had goals of the GNU and one of them is to have a 'compliance officer' mandated by the government in each company). I'm glad most of these attempts have failed.
- Kalium 12y ago
  GNU licenses don't exist to be "lures". They exist to make it difficult to be parasitic to the open source world. Stallman isn't out to destroy commercial software. He's out to ensure freedom of computing for all. If commercial software can't function without taking away freedom, then that's the problem of those business models.
  - FireBeyond 12y ago
    Eh, what? Because 'free software with commercial support offering' is not 'commercial software. Your claim is "Stallman isn't out to destroy commercial software. If commercial software can't function without being free, then that's its problem" - where one is the very exact opposite of the other. "He doesn't want to kill it. But if it can't survive without being something it's inherently the opposite of, well, that's not us seeking its death, but rather 'a problem of their business model'." Hmm.
    - Kalium 12y ago
      Implicit is that I believe commercial software can exist while still being free.
      - FireBeyond 12y ago
        How so? Commercial -support-, perhaps. Butt in not sure how offering to sell software that is free I'd any business model. And that's my point, Stallman absolutely DOES want to kill commercial software (as is this right)
        Kalium 12y ago
        I consider commercial support a business model for commercial software. Commercial software does not have to mean non-free proprietary software.
        lazylizard 12y ago
        but what do redhat,suse, joyent, docker sell?

by s73v3r 12y ago

If you don't like their conditions for using it, then don't fucking use it. Why do you feel entitled to use other people's work without adhering to their conditions?

MaulingMonkey 12y ago

> Why do you feel entitled to use other people's work without adhering to their conditions? I don't see where paulhauggis is claiming he's entitled to use other people's work without adhering to their conditions. Can you point out that claim explicitly for me? (edit: removed a stray nonsensical "it" for clarity) > If you don't like their conditions for using it, then don't fucking use it. This is what I generally do when it comes to GPLed libraries. Even closed source APIs generally grant me more "freedom" as a developer in how I redistribute my own programs invoking those APIs. But hey, it's their right to release GPLed software. I make use of some GPLed software (generally only as a user, not a developer) and thank their developers for their contributions. ...but I don't think it's outrageous to find their definition of "free" a little odd, I get why it can be hard to follow their line of reasoning, and don't see the harm in trying to dig into the reasoning behind using the GPL over, say, a more permissive license such as MIT. Personally, I'm more inclined to release under permissive licenses - but this is your chance to convince paulhauggis of the merits of the former, no?

paulhauggis 12y ago

This is exactly why I don't use any GNU code in any of my projects. I am just sick of people claiming it is "free" when it's actually a lure to get companies to use the code for free and then get bitten in the ass in the end by having to release proprietary code. Why is it that whenever I bring up this point, the words "theft" and "stealing" are used by many. However, when we are talking about copyright infringement, I am instantly corrected when I try to use those words to describe essentially the exact same practice?? (people here have even said it is their 'right' to freely copy copyrighted material). "If you don't like their conditions for using it, then don't fucking use it. Why do you feel entitled to use other people's work without adhering to their conditions?" So, it's not about giving and happiness anymore and happiness is it? Giving out software for free and then getting angry and going after someone in court when they don't use it to your liking is not freedom in my mind. I release all of my software under the BSD license. It's true freedom because I don't care what you do with it. It's a true unselfish act. The GNU is just Stallman's attempt to destroy the commercial software industry, tie up our courts with ridiculous GNU violations, and essentially socialize it (a few years back, he had goals of the GNU and one of them is to have a 'compliance officer' mandated by the government in each company). I'm glad most of these attempts have failed.

Kalium 12y ago
GNU licenses don't exist to be "lures". They exist to make it difficult to be parasitic to the open source world. Stallman isn't out to destroy commercial software. He's out to ensure freedom of computing for all. If commercial software can't function without taking away freedom, then that's the problem of those business models.
- FireBeyond 12y ago
  Eh, what? Because 'free software with commercial support offering' is not 'commercial software. Your claim is "Stallman isn't out to destroy commercial software. If commercial software can't function without being free, then that's its problem" - where one is the very exact opposite of the other. "He doesn't want to kill it. But if it can't survive without being something it's inherently the opposite of, well, that's not us seeking its death, but rather 'a problem of their business model'." Hmm.
  - Kalium 12y ago
    Implicit is that I believe commercial software can exist while still being free.
    - FireBeyond 12y ago
      How so? Commercial -support-, perhaps. Butt in not sure how offering to sell software that is free I'd any business model. And that's my point, Stallman absolutely DOES want to kill commercial software (as is this right)
      - Kalium 12y ago
        I consider commercial support a business model for commercial software. Commercial software does not have to mean non-free proprietary software.
      - lazylizard 12y ago
        but what do redhat,suse, joyent, docker sell?