4 ms·

This kind of texts always reminds me of political/religious pamphlets. If you love freedom so much why don't you just let people release their software under a

This kind of texts always reminds me of political/religious pamphlets. If you love freedom so much why don't you just let people release their software under a license they seem appropriate and you release your software under copyleft? If Apple's not your friend don't play with them. Don't try to force them into a friendship.

rogerbraun 11y ago
It's about educating developers to make an informed decision. I don't know why that's supposed to be religious.
- matthewmacleod 11y ago
  I guess it's the abstract, evangelical nature of it that makes it comparable to religion in some ways. The implicit assumption you're making is that developers are not making an informed decision already. I reckon that's not the case, and the developers are informed – they just don't care. Arguments about long-term, abstract concepts like enduring freedom of software, or the risk of patent litigation for using non-copyleft software, are valuable to have. But these things have a limited impact in the short-term, day-to-day work of developers.
  - userulluipeste 11y ago
    "the developers are informed – they just don't care" We can't take that for granted. I for one found the article very useful and informing, raising my awareness about this next Apple stunt.
    - gambiter 11y ago
      Except, nearly the entire article is based on speculation. Speculation doesn't raise awareness, it simply makes you think you're informed. In reality, you're just accepting someone else's biased opinions.
- cactusface 11y ago
  It's proselytizing.
- kybernetyk 11y ago
  I didn't say it's religious. I just said it reminds me of a religious black&white world view: There's the bad thing that will land you in hell and then there's our thing that will save your soul. Don't know. It's the whole style. Phrases like "Apple's pathological hatred of copyleft" just don't sit well with me. If you want to educate me: fine, do it. But at least try to avoid sounding like a fanatic.
- stephenr 11y ago
  The problem is that posts like this one strongly suggest that anything but a decision to fully embrace the GPL is somehow wrong.
- d_theorist 11y ago
  I think a better word might be bigoted. The author seems to have strong intolerance for anybody who doesn't share his precise view of software licensing.
- madeofpalk 11y ago
  I think to me its so about how preachy it all is. It's summed up by me with > their goal is to end copyleft compilers. Copyleft has nothing to do with this. Apple just want to make a better compiler. If a copyleft compiler is thrown by the wayside in the process, or they choose not to release under a copyleft license, that's just collateral. Stop being so preachy and making Apple out to be malicious. They just don't care.
pron 11y ago
This is a political statement, and I think it's a good one. Politics means the struggle over power distribution in society. It is an unqualified good thing! Some people don't like the game of statesmanship, namely how people bargain over politics, but that's a whole other matter altogether. Politics means defining to ourselves what our goals are. For example, if you say that we as a society should invest in technology because technology can make people's lives better then you've just made a political statement (a very vague one, but undeniably political). Anything that states what we should do as a society -- as opposed to, say, stating what is -- is by definition political. And by the way, political statements are different from religious ones (though the two may overlap). This is not a religious statement. The answer to your question (which is also a veiled political statement) is that allowing non-free modification and distribution would go against the political goals of the article's author, who believes that when it comes to software freedoms, all liberties should be granted except for the liberty to restrict that freedom. You may not agree with that political ideology, but it certainly makes sense (but bear in mind that disagreeing with this ideology isn't lack of ideology -- which is impossible if you have an opinion on what we should do -- but merely a different one).
baddox 11y ago
> If you love freedom so much why don't you just let people release their software under a license they seem appropriate and you release your software under copyleft? "Freedom" is only defined in terms of one's beliefs about human rights. Some people (myself not included) believe that they have a right to view and modify the source code of all software they interact with in any capacity. To those people, there is no "freedom to release software under a license they seem appropriate," because the only licenses that do not violate what they perceive to be their rights are open source licenses.
- kybernetyk 11y ago
  Ok, there's two alternatives then: 1) Don't interact with said software if it doesn't fit into your concept of freedom. 2) Write the software yourself. But forcing someone to release their software in way they don't want to isn't one of those alternatives. (Your freedom ends where my freedom begins).
  - Flimm 11y ago
    You yourself said "your freedom ends where my freedom begins", and if one defines "my freedom" as "my right to modify and distribute the software I have legally acquired", you can see how laws that ban that are against the principle you referred to. It's not that anyone wants to force Apple to release software, it's that the FSF expects Apple to give back users the rights that ought not to have been taken away through unjust copyright laws. Of course, there's always the option of exclusively using libre alternatives, which the FSF does advocate, but from FSF's point of view, that doesn't mean that they shouldn't complain about how Apple is taking advantage of unfair laws in addition.
    - kybernetyk 11y ago
      >"my right to modify and distribute the software I have legally acquired", you can see how laws that ban that are against the principle you referred to. Sure, you can modify and redistribute any software you have legally acquired. But that means you have to buy out the original author (like in: he hands over the copyrights to you). As an end-user on the other hand you usually just acquire a license and not the software itself. And as a license is just a contract you are only permitted to do what the license allows you to. Not what you think you should be allowed to. Don't like it? Don't get a license.
s73v3r 11y ago
The problem with that line of thinking in general (not just limited to this topic) is that it ignores externalities. It takes the libertarian stance that a man is an island.

rogerbraun 11y ago

It's about educating developers to make an informed decision. I don't know why that's supposed to be religious.

matthewmacleod 11y ago
I guess it's the abstract, evangelical nature of it that makes it comparable to religion in some ways. The implicit assumption you're making is that developers are not making an informed decision already. I reckon that's not the case, and the developers are informed – they just don't care. Arguments about long-term, abstract concepts like enduring freedom of software, or the risk of patent litigation for using non-copyleft software, are valuable to have. But these things have a limited impact in the short-term, day-to-day work of developers.
- userulluipeste 11y ago
  "the developers are informed – they just don't care" We can't take that for granted. I for one found the article very useful and informing, raising my awareness about this next Apple stunt.
  - gambiter 11y ago
    Except, nearly the entire article is based on speculation. Speculation doesn't raise awareness, it simply makes you think you're informed. In reality, you're just accepting someone else's biased opinions.
cactusface 11y ago
It's proselytizing.
kybernetyk 11y ago
I didn't say it's religious. I just said it reminds me of a religious black&white world view: There's the bad thing that will land you in hell and then there's our thing that will save your soul. Don't know. It's the whole style. Phrases like "Apple's pathological hatred of copyleft" just don't sit well with me. If you want to educate me: fine, do it. But at least try to avoid sounding like a fanatic.
stephenr 11y ago
The problem is that posts like this one strongly suggest that anything but a decision to fully embrace the GPL is somehow wrong.
d_theorist 11y ago
I think a better word might be bigoted. The author seems to have strong intolerance for anybody who doesn't share his precise view of software licensing.
madeofpalk 11y ago
I think to me its so about how preachy it all is. It's summed up by me with > their goal is to end copyleft compilers. Copyleft has nothing to do with this. Apple just want to make a better compiler. If a copyleft compiler is thrown by the wayside in the process, or they choose not to release under a copyleft license, that's just collateral. Stop being so preachy and making Apple out to be malicious. They just don't care.

pron 11y ago

This is a political statement, and I think it's a good one. Politics means the struggle over power distribution in society. It is an unqualified good thing! Some people don't like the game of statesmanship, namely how people bargain over politics, but that's a whole other matter altogether. Politics means defining to ourselves what our goals are. For example, if you say that we as a society should invest in technology because technology can make people's lives better then you've just made a political statement (a very vague one, but undeniably political). Anything that states what we should do as a society -- as opposed to, say, stating what is -- is by definition political. And by the way, political statements are different from religious ones (though the two may overlap). This is not a religious statement. The answer to your question (which is also a veiled political statement) is that allowing non-free modification and distribution would go against the political goals of the article's author, who believes that when it comes to software freedoms, all liberties should be granted except for the liberty to restrict that freedom. You may not agree with that political ideology, but it certainly makes sense (but bear in mind that disagreeing with this ideology isn't lack of ideology -- which is impossible if you have an opinion on what we should do -- but merely a different one).

baddox 11y ago

> If you love freedom so much why don't you just let people release their software under a license they seem appropriate and you release your software under copyleft? "Freedom" is only defined in terms of one's beliefs about human rights. Some people (myself not included) believe that they have a right to view and modify the source code of all software they interact with in any capacity. To those people, there is no "freedom to release software under a license they seem appropriate," because the only licenses that do not violate what they perceive to be their rights are open source licenses.

kybernetyk 11y ago
Ok, there's two alternatives then: 1) Don't interact with said software if it doesn't fit into your concept of freedom. 2) Write the software yourself. But forcing someone to release their software in way they don't want to isn't one of those alternatives. (Your freedom ends where my freedom begins).
- Flimm 11y ago
  You yourself said "your freedom ends where my freedom begins", and if one defines "my freedom" as "my right to modify and distribute the software I have legally acquired", you can see how laws that ban that are against the principle you referred to. It's not that anyone wants to force Apple to release software, it's that the FSF expects Apple to give back users the rights that ought not to have been taken away through unjust copyright laws. Of course, there's always the option of exclusively using libre alternatives, which the FSF does advocate, but from FSF's point of view, that doesn't mean that they shouldn't complain about how Apple is taking advantage of unfair laws in addition.
  - kybernetyk 11y ago
    >"my right to modify and distribute the software I have legally acquired", you can see how laws that ban that are against the principle you referred to. Sure, you can modify and redistribute any software you have legally acquired. But that means you have to buy out the original author (like in: he hands over the copyrights to you). As an end-user on the other hand you usually just acquire a license and not the software itself. And as a license is just a contract you are only permitted to do what the license allows you to. Not what you think you should be allowed to. Don't like it? Don't get a license.

s73v3r 11y ago

The problem with that line of thinking in general (not just limited to this topic) is that it ignores externalities. It takes the libertarian stance that a man is an island.