Why should I assume knowledge?
You don't have to assume knowledge. But you don't have to assume a lack of knowledge either, if you're interested in an honest debate.
Words mean things.
Yes, words do mean things, and "use" does often mean "distribute" despite your insincere protestations to the contrary. It's a normal everyday usage of the word, not a legalistic one.
If people can't write clearly, it ain't my fault.
His writing was quite clear. It's your wilful blinders that make it seem otherwise.
And it's not liek slashdot hasn't been full of misconceptions about the GPL in the past. Nosireee.
Yes, but you can't claim for a minute with a straight face that the misconceptions are all on one side.
If you remember, I originally gave too options: being ignorant or being a freeloader.
How can I forget that? It's that asshole, dickish false dichotomy that drew me in. No matter how you want to twist it, those aren't the only two options.
If he meant use as in distribute then hw was shining about not being able to use someone else's stuff for free.
Again, there's a huge difference between saying "I really want your stuff, and I'm just taking it" and "Even if you have some nice stuff, I won't be able to use it unless you do this." And it's still very disingenuous of you to place somebody saying the latter thing in the "freeloader" category.
As I said, I write lots of open source software. It's all permissively-licensed, because then I know that there is no problem using it in anything, either for me or others. I won't use GPLed libraries, because if I'm going to learn a tool well, I want to be able to use it under any forseeable circumstances. By your logic, deciding on a pragmatic course of action like this makes me a freeloader.
You keep complaining about supposed unclear writing and ignorance, but even when it's already been pointed out, you also keep whining about people who are not using other people's stuff being "freeloaders". I don't know and don't really care whether you troll from meanness or stupidity, but troll you do -- that's the most torturous logic in this whole thread, and if you weren't so heavily invested in that goofy opinion, you wouldn't have to resort to cheap debating tricks like deliberately misunderstanding your opponents.
Pretending the sentence is, say, 5 years while letting the "unofficial" system inflict a de facto life sentence is dishonest and against the rule of law.
People who wear funny pants can't get jobs. People who come up the wrong way in google searches can't get jobs either. Sometimes (e.g. sex-offender registries) one of these may directly be the fault of the government, but in the case the article is referring to, if the government really feels that the man is being harmed by his name being too recognizable, it would seem like the government already has tools to fix this (e.g. legalized name changes) without placing burdens on third parties.
Society should have the balls to admit its own true character to itself and then change if it can't live with it.
This is a direct argument against making google do anything differently -- if "society" cannot see a true fact on google and then do the right thing with the information, that's a problem with society, not google.
But a good default option would be GPL, since it keeps YOUR options open.
I could see that being a good default option for the perfect program.
But if your program is not perfect, and you'd like others to contribute and help perfect it, then (since most people honor the spirit of the original license when contributing) if you get some really nice contributions that you would like to use yourself, all of a sudden, your options may not be as open with the GPL as they would have been with a permissive license, because now you have to honor the GPL license of your collaborators.
Conversely, if your program is not perfect, and you later perfect it yourself, you can always slap the GPL on the perfected version, so, assuming that you continue to improve your program, it's wrong to think that you've foreclosed the option of using the GPL simply because you started out with a permissive license.
No, you don't have a good understanding.
You don't know jack about my understanding.
Because you don't need to agree to the GPL to use it.
When people discuss "using" a program, they are usually simply talking about using the program.
When people discuss "using" library code, then yes, often -- in fact, usually -- distribution is implied. When people talk about "using" GPL code and complain they can't, then it's awfully condescending of you to (as you keep doing) assume they don't know what the fuck they are talking about, rather than simply assuming they are writing informally, and in the context of their writing, "use" implies "distribution."
Hell, if you don't want to assume, and don't want to be an asshole, you could just ask, y'know -- "Did you mean utilize all by yourself, or did you mean distribute?"
But that would take all the argument away and not be fun, amirite?
Now if you go and re-read with this simple fact in your head, you might find a completely different take on things.
Yeah, rationality and reading comprehension are such binary things.
Apparently they are.
He was talking about "using" not contributing back.
If you would just apply the tiniest bit of thought to this, you would realize that if he is not allowed to use something (because of other conditions placed on him), there is no reason for him to learn it well enough to contribute back to it. It's a horse-and-cart, or chicken-and-egg thing.
It's called freeloading because not only does he want something for nothing.
How do you know? By your logic, no non-GPL free software could ever be developed.
You don't call users "freeloaders",
Well, alrighty then!
you only call people who might be able to contribute back "freeloaders."
No, I call people who want to take the free stuff I've stuck out there and wrap it up inproprietary licenses entirely for free "freeloaders". They want to take, take. take and give nothing back.
Sorry, that doesn't compute. If he admires your stuff and would like to use it, but can't, and lets you know he can't -- he's not a freeloader.
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
Your principles aren't very principled if they include calling people who aren't even using your stuff freeloaders, while not calling people who are using your stuff freeloaders.
You may have noticed the first option, where he was merely ignorant, I sought to correct. If he takes my advice then he'll be fine. I gave two options. He can pick whichever he wants.
No, your "answers" assumed a lot that wasn't in evidence about his motivations and position. It really isn't that black and white in a lot of peoples' worlds.
Also with the LGPL3, the linking condition of which you speak is now gone.
All right, smarty-pants, then what's the point of section 4d0?
You can release _your_ code under whatever license you choose, as long as the license doesn't conflict with the GPL as applied to the derivative work as a whole.
it was actually the great Saint RMS himself who started all the FUD about GPL infection, when he forced the guy who wrote common Lisp to change his license to the GPL, merely because common Lisp could dynamically link to readline.
common Lisp didn't need readline. common Lisp didn't ship with readline. But if a customer had both on the same system, common Lisp could utilize readline.
Saint Stallman, at that point having giving up coding himself, had enough time on his hands to harangue people who were coding and didn't really care that much about the license, so the common Lisp guy just gave in.
So if people are spreading what you guys feel is FUD about code coming in contact with GPLed code and being infected, maybe you should take it up with the guy who started it.
You came out in support of the guy...
No, I came out to call out this:
That's really the only reason to not use something with a copyleft license.
Which, if you really believe, makes it impossible to have rational conversation with you. The comment about a sociopath is just gravy, showing that you are not interested in real debate.
But your reasons are based on a completely flawed understanding of the GPL
This shows the same thing. So I'll honor that request to not have a real debate, despite the fact that I have an extremely detailed understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the GPL and other licenses, as well.
But you knew that, right? Please tell me you knew that all the people who wrote LLVM didn't do so because they were worried that just compiling stuff with GCC would infect their code. You can't be so stupid you think they're all that ignorant, right?
Well, speaking of strawmen... [gstoddardt] only spoke [of people] who indeed want to "steal" GPL code whether or not they actually do.
Yeah, he brought that up himself, in a conversation that wasn't about that at all, so... strawman.
Second, compiling your code with GCC does not infect your source-code, or the compiled binary, with the GPL.
Yeah, and you brought this up in a conversation where... I wasn't claiming that, or the grandparent, or that great-grandparent. So yeah, another strawman. You guys keep it up!
No one owes him anything.
Who said otherwise? Why do you feel compelled to set up a strawman?
It may not matter to the GPL'd code's author whether this guy wants to use it in his own code or not.
That's absolutely true. But it may matter, so it's a great thing for the guy to say "if you do this, I can't use your code." Unless you don't believe in freedom of speech.
There are lots of reasons for writing code.
Sure, and I don't want to discourage anybody from writing code, and if you feel you need to use the GPL to write code, that's great -- do it!
It's (As they say, write your own code) absolutely not a stupid line.
No, it really is. At least in the context you are using it. You don't tell it to users. You're telling it to people who are already writing their own code.
The guy who GPL'd the code wrote it so he can do what he wants with it. That is his right.
Sure it's his right; same as it's the right (free speech and all) of the other guy to say that, for him, that makes the code unusable. "Write your own code" is not an attempt to address the pros and cons of different positions -- it's merely an attempt to shut the argument down.
Surely this other developer can write his own code too?
Exactly. That's what he's doing. And that's part of how LLVM and Toybox come about. And that's why it's stupid to say "write your own code." He's already writing his own fucking code.
Of course GPL'd people don't use that line with end users. After all they are free to use the software however they see fit. That's what the GPL says.
Ah. So the only reason you aren't snarky to end-users is because you're blindly following the religion of the license. Awesome.
As for toybox, llvm, etc. Good for them. Competition is a good thing. LLVM rejuvenated the stagnant GCC project. As for busybox vs toybox, toybox certainly is the better choice if the company doesn't know how to comply with the GPL or is too lazy to do so.
Hey, something we can agree on!
For too long companies thought open source, particularly "free software" mean public domain. It does not, regardless of license.
But this is a strawman in the current context. The upstream poster obviously doesn't believe that. He's not asking to use GPLed software in a way inconsistent with the license. He's telling you that he won't be able to use your software if you use that license, because he won't use it in violation of the license.
There are obligations under copyright law for all source code licenses, even proprietary ones like MS's royalty-free runtime redistribution licenses.
And this is a strawman, too. When somebody says, "if you use this license, I can't use the code" that is a data point, not an indication they are a criminal. Quite the opposite.
The problem is people think the GPL code is some free code they can steal and do anything they want with it.
At least not more than anything else.
Yes, there are people not following the terms of the license. Just like there are people not following the terms of other licenses.
But conflating those people with the people who are following the terms of the license -- people who say "Sorry, I can't use GCC, so I have to go play in the LLVM sandbox over here, and btw, if you want me to be able to contribute to projects in the future, the GPL is a non-starter" -- thinking or representing that those saying they cannot use your code are the same people as those illegally using your code -- that is just wrong.
Acting like they're whining when they are merely communicating the reality of their situation, that's not helpful either.
Because those aren't the people violating your license. Those are the people explaining why they are not using your code. And any time you gloss over this difference, you're adding to ignorance, rather than removing it.
Which seems to be a perfectly acceptable technique for many GPL proselytizers, but it's at least as dishonest as a lot of the strawmen you set up to rail against.
Perhaps you meant to say there's a lot of GPL software you'd like to incorporate into your own software but you can't because of the license.
I think he said what he meant to say, e.g. if you're an author, please consider using a different license than the GPL, because some people (e.g. him; yes, people are somewhat narcissistic that way, go figure) won't be able to utilize it otherwise.
And you won't get any sympathy either.
He's not looking for sympathy. He's looking for code. Believe it or not, a lot of this code will spring into existence eventually, and the GPL is actually hurting as much as it helps. Would LLVM exist if it weren't for the GPL, or would those people have worked on GCC? What about toybox vs. busybox?
As they say, write your own code!
This is the stupidest line, and it's uttered by GPL proponents all the fucking time. Why is it stupid? Because you don't tell it to users -- you tell it to programmers who are writing their own code.