http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/index.cfm?fa...
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/index.cfm?fa...
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/index.cfm?fa...

Possiamo pagare tanta pasta come desiderate

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/index.cfm?fa=weblink&weblink=http://www.onlyfree.de/cgi-bin/viscacha/user/6341/book.cgi
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/index.cfm?fa=weblink&weblink=http://www.onlyfree.de/cgi-bin/viscacha/user/6361/book.cgi
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/index.cfm?fa=weblink&weblink=http://www.onlyfree.de/cgi-bin/viscacha/user/6362/book.cgi

Possiamo pagare tanta pasta come desiderate

The GPL does not restrict any user from using propietary software (including video drivers), and that won’t change with v3. I think we can all agree on that. It doesn’t matter much that Stallman calls propietary software anti-ethical or Ballmer calls linux a “cancer”.

As for the GPL being a impediment to cooperation between propietary and open source developers, it is hardly cooperation if you take GPL code and put in some propietary piece of sofware. You seem to be missing the very basic point that the GPL-based development model is based on sharing of the code (this is Torvalds’ very pragmatic stand on this). By the way, this works both ways: one could say that propietary companies are impeding cooperation by not allowing their developers to publish their work online.

Truth is, they are not compatible as development models. You can’t have it both ways.

The GPL does not restrict any user from using propietary software (including video drivers), and that won’t change with v3. I think we can all agree on that. It doesn’t matter much that Stallman calls propietary software anti-ethical or Ballmer calls linux a “cancer”.

As for the GPL being a impediment to cooperation between propietary and open source developers, it is hardly cooperation if you take GPL code and put in some propietary piece of sofware. You seem to be missing the very basic point that the GPL-based development model is based on sharing of the code (this is Torvalds’ very pragmatic stand on this). By the way, this works both ways: one could say that propietary companies are impeding cooperation by not allowing their developers to publish their work online.

Truth is, they are not compatible as development models. You can’t have it both ways.

No, Mark it does not.

GPL is only about freedom. Unfortunately, companies like Tivo and Novell think of ways despite the GPL of taking away users freedom.

The complexity of GPL 3.0 is entirely a result of the steadfast efforts of FSF to maintain freedom, in the face of the legions of corporate lawyers who will do anything to try to steal GPL code and make it unfree, in the name of profit.

I am all for them being able to use GPL code, but I am equally against anyone using GPL code to make unfree software.

If some corporation wants to make unfree software, great, but don’t steal from the GPL commons.

No, Mark it does not.

GPL is only about freedom. Unfortunately, companies like Tivo and Novell think of ways despite the GPL of taking away users freedom.

The complexity of GPL 3.0 is entirely a result of the steadfast efforts of FSF to maintain freedom, in the face of the legions of corporate lawyers who will do anything to try to steal GPL code and make it unfree, in the name of profit.

I am all for them being able to use GPL code, but I am equally against anyone using GPL code to make unfree software.

If some corporation wants to make unfree software, great, but don’t steal from the GPL commons.

The FSF and the GPL itself actively attempt to limit collaboration between proprietary and free software communities. As you’ll find in the article previously mentioned, Mr. Stallman says that it is better for GNU/Linux to not support video cards rather than include a proprietary binary.

In fact, the entire basis of the GPL is to frustrate cooperation between the immoral proprietary software guys and free software. The viral nature of the GPL (if you use code and integrate or build upon it, your code must become GPL) is designed to prevent that cooperation because it will lessen the freedom of the free software itself.

And, yes, it is hypocritical if you define freedom in the way that Libertarian’s define freedom, but not if you believe in the FSF version of freedom. When they say “freedom,” they don’t mean freedom in the sense that we mean it, Tim. It is four things and four things only… Those four issues trump all other definitions/aspects of freedom that you and I may hold. So, they would see no hypocrisy in preventing users from the freedom of using proprietary software, because the proprietary software is enslaving them anyway (if you buy the logic).

Finally, here is your answer: we have NO hostility to Free Software developers adding whatever terms they want to their software. They can make every user wear purple muumuu’s on Thursday’s if they want. It is their right. They are free to do it and enforce it. Whether anyone would use it afterward, whether it may harm the uptake of Free Software in the future… those are the questions we are addressing.

The FSF and the GPL itself actively attempt to limit collaboration between proprietary and free software communities. As you’ll find in the article previously mentioned, Mr. Stallman says that it is better for GNU/Linux to not support video cards rather than include a proprietary binary.

In fact, the entire basis of the GPL is to frustrate cooperation between the immoral proprietary software guys and free software. The viral nature of the GPL (if you use code and integrate or build upon it, your code must become GPL) is designed to prevent that cooperation because it will lessen the freedom of the free software itself.

And, yes, it is hypocritical if you define freedom in the way that Libertarian’s define freedom, but not if you believe in the FSF version of freedom. When they say “freedom,” they don’t mean freedom in the sense that we mean it, Tim. It is four things and four things only… Those four issues trump all other definitions/aspects of freedom that you and I may hold. So, they would see no hypocrisy in preventing users from the freedom of using proprietary software, because the proprietary software is enslaving them anyway (if you buy the logic).

Finally, here is your answer: we have NO hostility to Free Software developers adding whatever terms they want to their software. They can make every user wear purple muumuu’s on Thursday’s if they want. It is their right. They are free to do it and enforce it. Whether anyone would use it afterward, whether it may harm the uptake of Free Software in the future… those are the questions we are addressing.

The GPL is fundamentally about freedom, and it would obviously be hypocritical for them to try to use the GPL as a way to restrict users’ freedom to use non-free software. Rather, the goal of both the DRM and patent sections of the GPL are designed to ensure that end users of GPLed software have the freedom to examine, modify, and redistribute any copies of GPLed software they receive. Stallman might not like it if that software is used alongside proprietary software, but nothing in the GPL seems designed to prohibit them from doing so.

I’m still interested in an answer to my question: why so much hostility toward free software developers’ freedom to set the terms on which their software—their “intellectual property,” if you will—is used? Are only proprietary software developers entitled to see their rights protected?

The GPL is fundamentally about freedom, and it would obviously be hypocritical for them to try to use the GPL as a way to restrict users’ freedom to use non-free software. Rather, the goal of both the DRM and patent sections of the GPL are designed to ensure that end users of GPLed software have the freedom to examine, modify, and redistribute any copies of GPLed software they receive. Stallman might not like it if that software is used alongside proprietary software, but nothing in the GPL seems designed to prohibit them from doing so.

I’m still interested in an answer to my question: why so much hostility toward free software developers’ freedom to set the terms on which their software—their “intellectual property,” if you will—is used? Are only proprietary software developers entitled to see their rights protected?

While previous versions of v3 were based on ideological principles(DRM is antithetical to Free Software and should be banned, etc.), draft 3 has been reduced to what Braden rightfully called a series of vendettas. They target specific companies, not broad social agendas… and those companies the FSF likes,IBM and Google for instance, have there own little carveouts.

Does freedom now comes with exceptions, addendums, and earmarks based on who gives FSF the most money?

They are very, very clear about what they believe, and you’re either confused or purposely conflating the Open Source and the Free Software communities – something for which Mr. Stallman would beat you about the head.

Thankfully, Mr. Stallman wrote a lovely little piece for you entitled “Why Open Source” misses the point of Free Software.”

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html

As Mr Stallman says, “For the Open Source movement, non-free software is a suboptimal solution. For the Free Software movement, non-free software is a social problem and free software is the solution.”

They summarily reject the idea of proprietary companies partnering with free software companies because proprietary software companies are immoral in the eyes of the FSF. If you still don’t believe me, I suggest you read this piece from Stallman on the 20th Anniversary of the Free Software movement:

http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=04/01/05/1146229

Tim, perhaps you should do a little more reading before you start writing.

While previous versions of v3 were based on ideological principles(DRM is antithetical to Free Software and should be banned, etc.), draft 3 has been reduced to what Braden rightfully called a series of vendettas. They target specific companies, not broad social agendas… and those companies the FSF likes,IBM and Google for instance, have there own little carveouts.

Does freedom now comes with exceptions, addendums, and earmarks based on who gives FSF the most money?

They are very, very clear about what they believe, and you’re either confused or purposely conflating the Open Source and the Free Software communities – something for which Mr. Stallman would beat you about the head.

Thankfully, Mr. Stallman wrote a lovely little piece for you entitled “Why Open Source” misses the point of Free Software.”

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html

As Mr Stallman says, “For the Open Source movement, non-free software is a suboptimal solution. For the Free Software movement, non-free software is a social problem and free software is the solution.”

They summarily reject the idea of proprietary companies partnering with free software companies because proprietary software companies are immoral in the eyes of the FSF. If you still don’t believe me, I suggest you read this piece from Stallman on the 20th Anniversary of the Free Software movement:

http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=04/01/05/1146229

Tim, perhaps you should do a little more reading before you start writing.

GPL is all about Richard Stallman trying to take control of software he didn’t write, and couldn’t write: Linux.

GPL is all about Richard Stallman trying to take control of software he didn’t write, and couldn’t write: Linux.