On the dumbness of GPL and freedom

[Trond]

Please do not port software to Windows!

At least, do not port my software to Windows.

I don't want any of my work to give anyone a reason to support companies like Microsoft who try to limit people's freedoms

http://www.fefe.de/nowindows/

Just think about it. People who use GPL are just like their proprietary enemies: they say "do with our software whatever you want, as long as it is what we want".

Now tell me, what's having freedom worth, if you can't use it?

[Foz]

I fully support porting apps to Windows.

I get comfortable with using certain applications, so I would prefer to use them in Windows, so a Windows port is perfect, and *completely* in line with GPL.

It's just that programmer that is dumb.

[milan1612]

Just think about it. People who use GPL are just like their proprietary enemies: they say "do with our software whatever you want, as long as it is what we want".

+1, That's why I would never release software under the GPL - as it would not be free!

Only BSD or MIT licensed software is truly free software, but that's about it!

[Trond]

Only BSD or the MIT licensed software is truly free software, but that's about it!

This is my opinion, too.

[the.weavster]

Only BSD or the MIT licensed software is truly free software, but that's about it!

I agree, the GPL seems rather political and not at all liberating to me.

Fortunately there's some fantastic free software about (Firebird, Python, Postgres, etc...) that does have a very permissive licence and are cross-platform to boot.

[Rook Zimbabwe]

I have had morons DEMAND the source code for my POS program... Just because I give it away free for all to use they think that means GPL and they should have full access to source code.

The GPL was not intentioned that you can simply copy someone elses work and claim it your own but I have seen that happen.

Not me!

Free means I don't charge YOU. It doesn't mean I don't make money off of it

[aaron]

I've started licensing my code under the Poetic License

************
This work "as-is" we provide.
No warranty, express or implied.
We've done our best,
to debug and test.
Liability for damages denied.

Permission is granted hereby,
to copy, share, and modify.
Use as is fit,
free or for profit.
On this notice these rights rely.
************

Not only is it completely free as near as I can tell, but it makes me grin every time I load up my source code.

[Kuron]

Just think about it. People who use GPL are just like their proprietary enemies: they say "do with our software whatever you want, as long as it is what we want".

Now tell me, what's having freedom worth, if you can't use it?

One could ask if somebody is letting you use their work for free, especially in code form, is it really fair to complain about any restrictions they may impose or request?

The whole GPL/Open Source is freedom idea is bullshit. Many of the licenses can actually prevent the code from being used in an effective matter. I often avoid code released under various popular licenses, because of their draconian measures. Personally the main two that get me, are where I have to make my entire project open source, if I use somebody's code, or if I use somebody's code and fix the bugs or improve it, then I have to provide that code as open source.

As to this "Windows stipulation", I do not have a problem with it.

Personally, for my Windows stuff, I do not provide support for Vista or 7. At this time, I have not taken steps to prevent my software from running on those OSes, but I will provide no technical support for those OSes. The only versions of Windows I support is XP and 2000. As I said, I do not prevent my software from being run on Vista and 7, I just will not provide technical support for those OSes.

[Kaeru Gaman]

<offtopic>

On the dumbness of ... freedom

"freedom is a cage for the fool"
Konfuzitoteles
</offtopic>

[Trond]

Just think about it. People who use GPL are just like their proprietary enemies: they say "do with our software whatever you want, as long as it is what we want".

Now tell me, what's having freedom worth, if you can't use it?

One could ask if somebody is letting you use their work for free, especially in code form, is it really fair to complain about any restrictions they may impose or request?

No, not at all. People can make any restriction they want on their own software. But they cannot make any restriction and still claim to be free as in freedom.

[Kuron]

No, not at all. People can make any restriction they want on their own software. But they cannot make any restriction and still claim to be free as in freedom.

I agree 100%

I also never understood the free as in speech, not free as in beer argument. It seems backwards to me since you are dealing with the use of IP rights, a virtual property, not the expression of IP rights.

[bembulak]

+1 on the topic.
Basically I like free software and most software I use, is free software (GPL, LGPL, BSD, MIT, ...), BUT

some ppl tend to be evangelists on the GPL and that's just bullshit.
The GPL provides "freedom", but for the code!
BSD also provides freedom, but for the user.
I love to be able to use the same programm (e.g. GIMP, Geany, Inkscape, ...) on multiple platforms.

That's why I meanwhile prefere BSD-styled licenses: if I don't want to give away the (adopted) code, I'm not forced to! This can be important for buiseness - and honestly: we all have to get some food, house, ...
Sometimes I really wonder, where RMS lives and what he does eat. He really seems not to have any idea of the "commercial world out there". He hasn't even a shaver.... :roll:

[Demivec]

No, not at all. People can make any restriction they want on their own software. But they cannot make any restriction and still claim to be free as in freedom.

I agree 100%

I also never understood the free as in speech, not free as in beer argument. It seems backwards to me since you are dealing with the use of IP rights, a virtual property, not the expression of IP rights.

[Slightly offtopic]
There are no such things as "IP rights" or "virtual property". The things being discussed here would fall under copyrights, patents, or trademarks. They are each real and distinct.
[/Slightly offtopic]

GPL deals with copyright by permitting the freedom to copy or obtain a copy of the source code and binary version of a work. It also deals with patents by requiring any necessary patent licenses to be extending to anyone that receives a copy of the software so that they can exercise the rights that the GPL gives them.

Just think about it. People who use GPL are just like their proprietary enemies: they say "do with our software whatever you want, as long as it is what we want".

+1, That's why I would never release software under the GPL - as it would not be free!

@milan1612: what do you mean by "it would not be free"?

[milan1612]

Just think about it. People who use GPL are just like their proprietary enemies: they say "do with our software whatever you want, as long as it is what we want".

+1, That's why I would never release software under the GPL - as it would not be free!

@milan1612: what do you mean by "it would not be free"?

It means that I don't consider GPL-licensed software as free software. The GPL restricts so many
things, you can hardly call it free anymore. The word 'free' implies that I can get and use it for free,
but combined with 'software', it also means that I am free to do anything with it I want - even alter and
embed it in my own, proprietary code.

[Kuron]

The things being discussed here would fall under copyrights, patents, or trademarks.

You just gave the legal definition of intellectual property. For clarity, there are two types of intellectual property: Copyrights and Industrial Property (patents, trademarks, industrial designs, etc).