It's official..
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| cabreh Feb 18, 2013 9:49 AM EDT |
We have an anti-GPL campaign being run. Most likely by big proprietary interests who want to take for profilt and never give back. I can't think of any other reason for so many articles advocating the placing of everything in the "public domain" rather than a system that has brought forth some of the best free (in both senses) software ever. |
| jdixon Feb 18, 2013 10:11 AM EDT |
I'd be a lot more willing to listen to the theme of John's Imagine if he had practiced what he preached. I don't see any of his songs in the public domain, do you? |
| notbob Feb 18, 2013 11:41 AM EDT |
How many of his songs did he actually own? I don't know. |
| jdixon Feb 18, 2013 11:51 AM EDT |
> How many of his songs did he actually own? I don't know. AFAIK, not many, if any. But that was his choice also. He's the one who signed them away. But do as I say, not as I do gets old fairly quickly. Apparently it was OK for John to decide what to do with his property. The rest of us peons, not so much so. And yes, the sudden rash of anti-gpl posts does have an ominous feel to it. |
| Fettoosh Feb 18, 2013 1:00 PM EDT |
Now this one I knew smoked the funny stuff and that is why we shouldn't pay much attention to him.Quoting:But real innovation should happen in the open, Isn't that what the GPL makes sure of to happen? Quoting:and the most open way to do this is the public domain. If this was true, Public Domain software existed long before the GPL, why didn't it flourish like Free Software did since the GPL? The GPL is working very nicely so far and FOSS is winning, why would we need to change to something that never have been proven to work as well? What are the advantages that Public Domain has over the GPL? Quoting:This Article argues that this IP-based approach [used by free and open-source licenses], while perhaps helpful in the beginning, is no longer necessary and in fact prevents the movements from reaching their full potential. What is the full potential of FOSS? Is it to allow commercial monopolies to take FOSS code and hide it under their IP? How is that helping Free Open Software to advance and fulfill its goals? Attracting monopolies at any cost to make use of and benefit from FOSS code is not any where in the community's list of goals. FOSS code is available to use and modify to all but not to hide and take possession of by any single entity. The whole idea of associating FOSS with IP is total falsehood since the GPL is in favor of copyright and totally against IP. My understanding of the GPL is that, any software, or part of software, that is associated with any IP loses its status of being Free Software and should be removed. Self serving journalist are on full rampage. |
| Bob_Robertson Feb 18, 2013 1:47 PM EDT |
Once the Beatles established Apple Records, they were out from under the thumb and could have released their works any way they wanted. |
| dinotrac Feb 18, 2013 3:35 PM EDT |
The dumbest argument I've heard yet is that placing code in the public domain will cause innovation to stagnate. You young'uns have forgotten, but back before Bill Gates decided to make people pay for Altair Basic, the assorted home-brew computing types shared an awful lot of code without concern for licensing. In reality, since that time, in the world of license restricted software and a couple of proprietary platforms, the pace of innovation has, if anything, slowed. The so-called free software licenses are not about freedom. They are about control. |
| Fettoosh Feb 18, 2013 4:20 PM EDT |
Quoting:The dumbest argument I've heard yet is that placing code in the public domain will cause innovation to stagnate. Dino, Public Domain software does not cause innovation to stagnate, but it doesn't help software to advance and flourish like the GPL can. Quoting:The so-called free software licenses are not about freedom. They are about control. I wouldn't put it in that form, it is both. It is about freedom of usage, modification, publishing, etc. and control in the context of keeping it and its modifications under the same license. |
| dinotrac Feb 18, 2013 6:51 PM EDT |
>but it doesn't help software to advance and flourish History says otherwise. > like the GPL can. Of course not, because it doesn't rely on copyright restrictions in order to function. >I wouldn't put it in that form, it is both. It is about control with the belief (and it is nothing more than that) that control and restrictions will result in more freedom. |
| tracyanne Feb 18, 2013 7:06 PM EDT |
@caitlyn, yes I've been suspecting something like that as well, it's just too convenient that all these people would suddenly, just when Free Software has become so much more noticeable, and available, and successful, with so many new developers, we get this. I wonder who is behind it. |
| caitlyn Feb 19, 2013 12:04 AM EDT |
tracyanne: Thanks for responding to me. The funny thing is that I didn't post up until now. I think you meant cabreh. If it helps, I agree completely with what he wrote. |
| cabreh Feb 19, 2013 3:24 AM EDT |
@dinotrac > It is about control with the belief (and it is nothing more than that) that control and restrictions will result in more freedom. I agree it's about control. But I see it in a less sinister way than you. I see the control being that of a person who has worked hard on some code and who would like to be rewarded with code in return. In other words a payment in kind. Those who don't want to be a part of the community of code sharing can just go and grab up all the BSD licensed code and whatever they find in the public domain. But to suggest that everyone should be content to work and receive nothing in return so that the corporations can flourish and get rich is just a little too much for me. Not saying you are advocating this. Are you? |
| tracyanne Feb 19, 2013 5:36 AM EDT |
@caitlyn Cabreh sorry about that. hadn't had my Coffee |
| Fettoosh Feb 19, 2013 9:13 AM EDT |
Quoting:hadn't had my Coffee @TA, It sound like coffee with MS flavor/brand, it is time to break the lock-in. lol |
| dinotrac Feb 19, 2013 7:52 PM EDT |
@cabreh --- Control is control. It's sinister only when applied to sinister purposes. |
| gus3 Feb 20, 2013 12:11 PM EDT |
Or to hidden purposes. |
| dinotrac Feb 20, 2013 1:39 PM EDT |
@gus3 -- Hidden purposes are likely sinister, but sometimes, as in anonymous gifts, they are simply hidden. |
| gus3 Feb 20, 2013 2:35 PM EDT |
I'd say, in that case, the actor is hidden, but the purpose is pretty clear. |
| mbaehrlxer Feb 21, 2013 10:15 AM EDT |
if i want to share all my contributions to other code freely so that others can use it and share it too, then the GPL gives me all the rights i need to do that. i don't have a very strong feeling that GPL is the best license, but i also see no reasons to complain about GPLs limitations. the only reason to complain about the GPL are license incompatibilty and wanting the freedom to change the license for others. greetings, eMBee. |
| caitlyn Feb 21, 2013 10:48 AM EDT |
Linus Torvalds has said that if he was starting today he'd use the Affero GPL. See: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html I'm not religious when it comes to FOSS licenses. So long as it's Free (and I don't mean as in free beer) it's something that I prefer to anything proprietary, everything else being equal. |
| Fettoosh Feb 21, 2013 11:57 AM EDT |
Quoting:Linus Torvalds has said that if he was starting today he'd use the Affero GPL Wouldn't that force Amazon and others (Gov, etc) to release their modification to Linux kernel or else prevent them from using it? Just asking! |
| Bob_Robertson Feb 21, 2013 1:19 PM EDT |
> Wouldn't that force Amazon and others (Gov, etc) to release their modification to Linux kernel or else prevent them from using it? Sure reads like it to me. That kind of thing would HAVE to be there from the start, so that firms would have to figure out it they thought their trade secrets were valuable enough in improving the kernel to fit their needs, to justify using some other kernel (like BSD) that had no such requirement. There is always a balance between restrictions/requirements and liberty, as the various black markets demonstrate. Would the Affero GPL have had the adoption that the GPLv2 kernel has had? The argument for "get your changes into the mainline kernel" is because that way development improves for you, too. That's a very long-term view. The Affero is more of a short term "this is good so it must be required" view. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!