Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:hum (Score 1) 110

by kthreadd (#47715631) Attached to: Qt Upgrades From LGPLv2.1 to LGPLv3

The problem is that Richard Stallman is a fucking egocentric hypocrite and the gpl contract should be voided. If a company took a look at how the gpl code worked and then came up with a brand new algorithm with the same results as the gpl it would still be considered gpl code which is ridiculous.

Yes that is ridiculous, that's why it doesn't work that way.

Linux has no unix code(different algorithms but same results) but it looks like unix and it runs like unix, wouldn't this be a violation of unix patents?

Patents has not a lot to do with copyright.

Comment: Re:Downgrades (Score 3, Insightful) 110

by kthreadd (#47713787) Attached to: Qt Upgrades From LGPLv2.1 to LGPLv3

GPL and LGPL is not OSS, it's free software which is fundamentally different from OSS. It considers the user to be more free by eliminating the risk that someone will restrict them. It does not consider freedom to restrict freedom as something positive, rather it's negative in the freedom dimension.

Comment: Re:Tivoization (Score 1) 110

by kthreadd (#47713705) Attached to: Qt Upgrades From LGPLv2.1 to LGPLv3

Contributing your changes upstream was of course a good thing to do but you actually didn't have to. You have misunderstood the GPL. It only requires that you pass on the freedoms when you distribute the software. Therefore, if you don't distribute the program then you don't have to distribute your modifications. And if you distribute your program then you only have to pass on the source code to whoever you distribute it to, not who you got it from.

Comment: Re:Tivoization (Score 1) 110

by kthreadd (#47713633) Attached to: Qt Upgrades From LGPLv2.1 to LGPLv3

There's nothing in the LGPL that prevent you from linking statically. Static linking is not even mentioned. You just have to be able to relink it, so shipping your object files is fine. That's essentially why VLC moved to LGPL, they wanted to be compatible with Apple's mobile app store where it has to be linked statically.

The simple solution is of course trivial, license your program under a compatible license.

Comment: Re:What about OSS license that respects other righ (Score 1) 110

by kthreadd (#47713231) Attached to: Qt Upgrades From LGPLv2.1 to LGPLv3

I'm on board with OSS. But I don't think it goes far enough. The right to modify the code you run is a good one. But I am calling for OSS licenses to pick up another clause, the Zero-Kill clause, where in using the software in any weapons platform (be it sniper rifles or predator drones) is forbidden. People should have the right to not fear being killed by open source software.

Additionally, I am calling for another clause to protect human rights. People should be free from fear that OSS will be used to restrict their freedoms in other ways. This includes forbidding use of the software for censorship or oppression.

Both of those clauses would be incompatible with the definition of open source, especially regarding no discrimination against fields of endeavor. You're of course free to create and use such license, but keep in mind that it won't be considered open source and that a lot of people won't be able to use it.

"The pyramid is opening!" "Which one?" "The one with the ever-widening hole in it!" -- The Firesign Theatre

Working...