[stephenr]

As opposed to GPL & Toejam afficianados alike, who basically claim any license except GPL3 is the work of the devil, because I, a developer, dare to give someone other downstream developer, the choice to distribute derivative works how they see fit.

GPL perponents always claim its about "freedom". But it's one specific type of freedom, to the exclusion of all others.

[nknighthb]

Actually, at the moment, it's about the freedom of the developer of software to choose the license their code is offered under. GPL advocates make arguments for use of GPL. BSD advocates, as you've just demonstrated, prefer ad hominem attacks on RMS when they don't get what they selfishly feel entitled to.

[stephenr]

> it's about the freedom of the developer of software to choose the license their code is offered under

except, according to RMS and his fans, any choice but GPL is "wrong".

[belorn]

That is false, and now you are representing someone else opinion incorrecly. Would you like having other saying "according to stephenr and people like him, he thinks ..."

  "Releasing your code under one of the BSD licenses,
  or some other permissive non-copyleft license,
  is not doing wrong*"

- last sentence at https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-copyleft.html

"Is not doing wrong", the Exact word for word opposite to your claim.

Now please tell that you are sorry for misrepresenting someone else opinion and promise never to do it again. It is a shameful act.

[stephenr]

From http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00247.html

>The cause of the setback is the existence of a non-copylefted compiler that therefore becomes the base for nonfree compilers. The identity of that compiler -- whether it be LLVM, GCC, or something else -- is a secondary detail. To make GCC available for such use would be throwing in the towel. If that enables GCC to "win", the victory would be hollow, because it would not be a victory for what really matters: users' freedom.

> The only code that helps us and not our adversaries is copylefted code. Free software released under a pushover license is available for us to use, but available to our adversaries just as well. If you want your work to give freedom an advantage, use the leverage available to you -- copyleft your code. I invite those working on major add-ons to LLVM to release them under GNU GPL version-3-or-later.

If that isn't RMS saying he believes its wrong to release code under a BSD/MIT/etc permissive license, what is it?

This is the whole reason so many people use BSD or MIT (or similar) these days - they just want to write code and let others use it. RMS seems to be locked in some kind of fantasy world where if someone uses something other than GPL, it will mean the end of the world.

For extra kicks - http://blog.libertymcateer.com/2013/06/stallmans-blindspot-o...

Now please say you are sorry for cherry picking one comment from the website of an ORGANISATION I NEVER MENTIONED and attributing it to A PERSON.

[belorn]

You seem so confused, and you seem so angry at the world.

The goal that RMS has been striving for are: The users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software.

When people create proprietary software, then that is counter to RMS goal. proprietary software denies the user under threat of lawsuit the freedom to copy, distribute, study, change and improve (and at times run) the software.

BSD or MIT provides software to anyone, including people who use it for good, and people who use it for bad. When it comes to defending the freedom of others, it simply lie down and provided software indiscriminately.

To compare it to an similar goal, non-profit aid organizations try to provided money to extremely poor people. Their goal is to help people not starve to death and help improve their lives. However, they do not want their money to go to criminals, thieves, and drug cartels as that would hurt their overarching goal. Doing nothing, i.e giving money indiscriminately, would be an act of weakness. The act however of giving money to poor would still not be "wrong".

It is not wrong to indiscriminately give money to poor, but it is not the best way. It can even hurt the overarching goal of improving peoples lives.

(That you are shamelessly misrepresenting someone else opinion is a problem. I am deeply sorry for you and I hope you can find help.)

[stephenr]

> You seem so confused, and you seem so angry at the world.

I'm neither of those things. I've commented on one very specific topic - RMS/etc and their cult-like dedication to anti-developer, anti-corporate software licences.

My comments on this have not varied, so I don't know why you think I'm confused.

This issue is also a tiny fraction of what makes up the world, and while this issue concerns me, I'm hardly angry about it. Even if I were, how does that equate to "angry with the world"?

> The goal that RMS has been striving for are: The users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software.

I'm well aware of his stated goals.

> BSD or MIT provides software to anyone, including people who use it for good, and people who use it for bad.

"use it for bad" - if the thing they want to do is so bad, why would they be bothered about breaking a license in the first place? Let's come back tot hat later.

> non-profit aid organizations try to provided money to extremely poor people. Their goal is to help people not starve to death and help improve their lives. However, they do not want their money to go to criminals, thieves, and drug cartels as that would hurt their overarching goal.

Ok so first off. You just compared a HUGE community of software developers who use BSD/MIT licences, to drug cartels and thieves. Seriously? Besides the ridiculousness of the comparison, its downright fucking insulting.

A better comparison would be a charity run by a church group, that puts its idealogical belief system before the goal of raising more money for the poor. This actually happened in Australia a few years ago. Basically, the Salvation Army complained because a song given freely by a comedian for a Christmas CD (to generate funds for them to use to, you know, help the poor) makes lighthearted jokes about christianity (i.e. saying he doesn't believe jesus is magical).

This is no different than RMS (through the GPL) alienating hundreds if not thousands of companies who are willing to contribute to open source efforts, but also expect to be able to viably sell a product based on said code.

RMS goal is explicitly not "better code". If I wrote a 100% compatible alternative to GCC tomorrow, that produced 500% more efficient binaries, with a 200% speed increase in compile time, but released it under the BSD license, RMS would say "we can't use this" - not because its not better. Because someone else might ALSO take that product, package it up somehow, and make money from people willing to pay for it. Does that other product prevent him from using the original? No. Does it prevent me, the original author from using, improving, or even making money from the original product? No.

I'm not telling you that you shouldn't use the GPL license. Not at all. If you feel its right for you do that. I'm saying don't get on some high fucking horse telling people who choose not to use GPL, that what they're doing is "wrong" (either directly or indirectly, or via comparison to thieves, drug cartels and other criminals) because it doesn't fit with your specific ideology.

[nknighthb]

So what? Lots of people think lots of things are wrong that lots of other people disagree with. That has nothing to do with anything I've said.

You may want to make this thread about opinion and morality, since you can't "win" any other way, but that's not at all what it's about. The subjective merits of licenses are not at issue in any way, shape, or form.

[stephenr]

> You may want to make this thread about opinion and morality, since you can't "win" any other way

Sorry my name isn't RMS. I don't have to "win".

[rbanffy]

GPL-like licenses are designed to protect the freedoms of users at the expense of the freedoms downstream developers (or repackagers) would prefer to have. A Red Hat customer always gets full source code for all the GPL'ed software Red Hat sells them.

BSD-like licenses emphasize the rights of downstream developers (and repackagers) at the expense of the freedoms of their users. A Cisco user has no access to all the originally BSD-licensed software inside their routers.

[stephenr]

Yes, I understand the difference. My point is that RMS and his fans are near-religious in their belief that any choice but theirs is morally wrong.

[belorn]

In total contrast to all BSD fans and their near-religious belief that any choice but theirs is morally wrong.

Is it now that I should do some ad hominem attacks on openbsd project leader, just so the message really sinks in?

[stephenr]

> In total contrast to all BSD fans and their near-religious belief that any choice but theirs is morally wrong.

The difference is, anyone can freely make use of BSD licensed code, as they see fit.

Using GPL code means you have to "drink the kool-aid" - they don't just think any other choice is wrong, they force their view onto others.

[belorn]

Saying: "The difference is that my choice is right", is not helping you. It only strengthen the images of fundamentalism that you are carrying for BSD.

You do not just think any other choice is wrong, you are forcing your view onto others. Please stop.

[stephenr]

> You do not just think any other choice is wrong, you are forcing your view onto others.

How am I forcing my view onto others?

I take issue with people claiming the GPL is somehow "good" while BSD is "bad", and thus I reply. I'm not telling anyone they shouldn't USE the GPL. I'm saying stop acting like a door knocking jehovah witness trying to convert everyone else to use the GPL.

[rbanffy]

> anyone can freely make use of BSD licensed code, as they see fit.

Anyone but the users of "improved" versions.

[stephenr]

So you're working on the assumption that Fred took some of my BSD code, improved it, released it as a product, and Bob has paid for a commercial license to use it. Now Bob says he wants the source code for Fred's product.

How is it my right or the right of the user to demand what Fred do with the code he wrote?

[rbanffy]

For some, the rights of the user are non-negotiable. Considering how much our freedoms depend on being able to trust our computers and networks, I am very much inclined to think that way too.