spacelizard

15 ms·

91.
by spacelizard 13y ago
Where are you getting these sentiments from? The free software movement has nothing to gain from being anti-government. By itself it's a relatively non-partisan political movement. Copyleft licensing is just another tool they use to pr
92.
by spacelizard 13y ago
>Stallman has always believed that software should not be sold, either directly or indirectly I'm not sure how you drew that conclusion from that statement. Nothing in there says that.
93.
by spacelizard 13y ago
The message of the FSF is not particularly relevant to economics. Free software does not mean "non-commercial," it's free as in freedom. If you want to have control of your own computing then proprietary software is not neces
94.
by spacelizard 13y ago
Not really. GPLv3 will prevent hardware manufacturers from locking down their devices if they intend to ship Ubuntu Mobile. This is a good thing for users of those devices. I can't defend Canonical's support of proprietary drivers
95.
by spacelizard 13y ago
When the listener isn't paying, there will always be someone else to foot the bill: the artist. This is already happening on a wide scale. You forget the primary function of a music production company is to act as a bank for the artist
96.
by spacelizard 13y ago
>Do you realize that if music producers can't make a satisfactory profit, then music will just not be produced? I cringe whenever I hear someone express this sentiment, it's the equivalent of the nuclear option. Do you really t
97.
by spacelizard 13y ago
The problem with that example (and that whole line of thinking) is that the $1 billion they put into research was a gamble in the first place and didn't actually give them any pricing power because it has nothing to do with the demand
98.
by spacelizard 13y ago
The answer is probably all of them, and more due to derivative works being easier to create. Copyright has little to do with preserving or incentivizing profits at all, and it certainly doesn't have anything to do with how much someone
99.
by spacelizard 13y ago
Not true. Every now and then you'll see a car recalled because of manufacturing or design defects.
100.
by spacelizard 13y ago
I don't see the point of changing to a more permissive license just to get on the iOS and WP8 app stores. Those devices are all compromised to begin with.
101.
by spacelizard 13y ago
The view of the FSF is that, in the case of software, that power discrepancy is morally wrong. So copyleft was established as a method to disable it. In this context we don't consider "restrictive" as the opposite of "pe
102.
by spacelizard 13y ago
The FSF requires copyright assignment because: - Only the copyright holder can effectively enforce the license on a particular piece of software - They are in a better position to enforce the GPL than most users And yes, the reason for the
103.
by spacelizard 13y ago
If a proprietary company decides to modify and distribute GPLed software, then I would say they have been persuaded into a good business decision, because their users will have freedom with that software. You don't need to work with an
104.
by spacelizard 13y ago
Because the limitations on power apply to everyone. If neither you or I have power, then neither of us have control over the other. We both stand on the same ground.
105.
by spacelizard 13y ago
The purpose of the GPL is to bring freedom to the users and to discourage the use of proprietary software. The whole article postulates that proprietary software is acceptable, which is why it has no context. The GPL was never relevant to
106.
by spacelizard 13y ago
The GPL is not about control, it's about freedom. It gives you all the rights necessary to preserve the four freedoms. The only thing the GPL limits is power; it does not give you the power to take those freedoms away from anyone else.
107.
by spacelizard 13y ago
Since when have we ever had no copyright? I don't believe that a system whose primary purpose is to give certain people the "right" to attack others with litigation will ever succeed in fueling innovation. The only thing copy
108.
by spacelizard 13y ago
If you release your software under copyleft, and someone else can't use that in another project because they chose an incompatible license, the "hindrance" is entirely their fault, not yours. Now if someone takes your permiss
109.
by spacelizard 13y ago
That analogy is a bit flawed. People who can't legally combine the GPL with other projects had to make the conscious decision of choosing an incompatible license. If you acknowledge the idea that there are no non-universal recipients o
110.
by spacelizard 13y ago
The only groups that wish to "escape the network effects of the GPL" are proprietary companies that wish to attack their own users' freedoms. The fact that you have a choice of being able to reject proprietary software is not
111.
by spacelizard 13y ago
It has happened in many cases. Many companies have used, modified and contributed to GCC in the path with no complaints. The whole anti-copyleft thing did not start until recently, because of increased resistance from companies like Apple w
112.
by spacelizard 13y ago
Copyright is what allows people to "control code." Copyleft is necessary to in essence "reverse the effects" of copyright. So yes it does technically leverage the control copyright provides, but this is necessary as ever
113.
by spacelizard 13y ago
It could be used as a library as long as the other projects also made their software copyleft. The goal of copyleft is freedom for the users, not "pushing the state of the art forward." If they reject certain software because of c
114.
by spacelizard 13y ago
>Neither is true, and this hokey 'user rights' notion is just a thinly veiled justification for a paternalistic communist view of open source collaboration, in which you want to control not only your own code, but the code that
115.
by spacelizard 13y ago
That instance is fine. It certainly is nice that they released it under a free software license, it would have been better if they used copyleft, but there is nothing wrong with the license they chose. They part where they don't want y
116.
by spacelizard 13y ago
No, if you'll re-read my post you'll see how I described that even if you view this issue in a vacuum, the other parties are still at fault as well. Apple especially does not want you to "get along," and especially not
117.
by spacelizard 13y ago
It's a bit strange that you blame then GPL when it is just as much the authors of the incompatible licenses' fault, especially when in some cases it's completely their fault because the authors of those licenses deliberately
118.
by spacelizard 13y ago
A lax permissive license could potentially lead to a whole host of other problems including licensing problems. These licenses are not free from incompatibilities either, see the infamous BSD advertising clause for an example of that. And a
119.
by spacelizard 13y ago
No, that doesn't follow. Giving certain users the ability to distribute derivative works to other users but yet say no when one of them asks for the source code presents the same misappropriation of power as if the author of the origin
120.
by spacelizard 13y ago
Yes, I agree, it is ridiculous. That's what happens when you have to deal with software licensing. The whole point of licenses is to be incompatible, if all licenses were compatible then we would only have one license. I didn't co

More ›