A fucking bunch of lying pussies

From: The Wannabee (faq_at_.@.@.@.@.@szmyggenpv.com)
Date: 05/31/04 

Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 03:33:54 +0200

Speaking of Randall Hyde (The PDF Master)
Hutch (The MaltMoron)
And Donkey (the biggest stinking ***)

You are all RETARDS. You havent even read the GPL. Together you truely
consist of 200 years of stupidity.
You suck. You whine. You act like 3 pussies. If it wore not for the fact
that my aquarie fish can see through the moronic bull***-.....

A bunch of lying scumbags. Thats what you are.

;-) *** *** ***

RANDALL HYDE

This is a continuation of the GPL discussion in the SoapBox Forum.

I personally do not use the GPL on my code for one simple reason: I want
people to freely use my works without any strings attached. The big
problem I have with the GPL is not that the authors of such code don't
have a right to do what they wish with their code (including GPL'ing it),
the problem I have is that the GPL makes those same demands upon me,
regardless of the contribution I make (or the GPL'd code makes in a
project). E.g., if I write a 100,000 line program and add a 10-line GPL
function to the code base, I have to give up my rights to those 100,000
lines of code.

Some argue that this is the "right" way, the way the world should be. I
disagree. The authors of such code have no more right to dictate what I do
with my code than I have the right to dictate what they do with their
code.

Don't get me wrong, they have every right to put their code out and attach
the GPL to it. But I also have every right to reject their work and
develop my code independently of their work. If you go back to Stallman's
original article, upon which he founded FSF, the GNU toolset, and,
ultimately, the GPL, you'll find that his original motivation was to
encourage people to share code. Today, the backlash to the GPL is starting
to have exactly the opposite affect - people are purposefully spuring GPL
code out of fear of contamination of their projects (once GPL, it's pretty
hard to pull the code back).

The notion that GPL code is somehow "free" is hypocrasy. If it were truly
free, as in freedom, then I'd be free to use it as I wish without having
restrictions placed on *my* contributions.

Again, I firmly believe that everyone has a right to decide how to release
their own personal creations, but arguing for the GPL as a way of
maintaining freedom is one of the stupidist arguments I've ever heard.
Releasing your code to the public domain (or, if you don't like that term,
giving up all rights to your work so anyone can do as they please with it)
is the only true form of "freedom" applied to software.

Putting a work in the public domain is not for everyone. Some people
cannot handle the fact that someone else *might* make some money off their
work. Guess what? People are doing that anyway (there are some might rich
folks at Red Hat, I hear). If you place so many restrictions on your code
that people cannot even distribute it (e.g., Red Hat), then no one will
ever use your code. Given that most people release their code in a
"freeware" fashion expecting to get paid in "ego-points", placing all
these restrictions on the code would seem to be defeating the whole
purpose of the release.

Oh well, I'm not in the Soap Box anymore, so I should get off mine
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
Back to top
                    
        
hutch--
Site Admin

Joined: 09 May 2003
Posts: 2328
Location: Sydney Australia
        
Posted: Sat May 29, 2004 7:42 am Post subject:
At its best, I see GPL as a viable method of programmers sharing a project
and passing on code that they have contributed for others to work on,
modify, finish or improve. At it worst its a method of freeloaders and
code collectors to get the results of someone elses work without paying
for it or contributing to it.

I gave up on the notion of GPL when I used to use the UPX exe packer where
the two authors had done some good work with their code design but
crippled it with some very unusual conditions of use for GPL and non-GPL
software. One of the thing I regularly do with compressed code is patch it
after compression for a variety of purposes but with the UPX packer, if
you did not release your own code under GPL, it was not allowed and the
EXE had to remain decompressible.

Anyone who licences an exe packer that makes the compressed program a work
derived from their exe packer is simply kidding themselves and while the
licence probably would not stand up legally, it was an example of the
failings of the GPL licencing system.

There has always been a viable system to be completely and unconditionally
free of nonsense like this, BUY the software and then write anything you
like in any way you like with it and distribute it in any manner you see
fit. The real strength of freeware is that it does not have strings
atached to it in the same manner as the GPL system.

The reason why you copyright protect a freeware project is so some slime
bag does not collect it and sell it. With the MASM32 project, it is
competely copyright protected both by the project and the individual
authors so it cannot be commercially exploited and it is licenced so that
any person can use it to write anything they like and distribute it in any
manner they like with no strings attached at all.

Copyright freeware offers the user this freedom in the same way that paid
for commercial software does and this is why it is a superior system for
the end user who only distributes what they want on whatever basis they
like.
_________________
Regards,

        
Back to top
                     
        
johnfound
Member

Joined: 21 May 2003
Posts: 241
Location: Bulgaria
        
Posted: Sat May 29, 2004 10:52 am Post subject:
Well, Randall is right about GPL, talking about sources, Hutch is not,
talking about executables.
Back to top
                     
        
hutch--
Site Admin

Joined: 09 May 2003
Posts: 2328
Location: Sydney Australia
        
Posted: Sun May 30, 2004 1:31 am Post subject:
Executable is closed source, the authors privelege.
_________________
Regards,

        
Back to top
                     
        
doomsday
Member

Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 73
Location: Brisbane, Australia
        
Posted: Sun May 30, 2004 4:54 pm Post subject:
Hi Randy,

I agree with you, that people should be allowed to release their code
under whatever terms they see fit, with the one exception that their terms
shouldn't be able to prohibit me (or anyone else for that matter) from
independantly arriving at the same solution.

randall.hyde wrote:
The notion that GPL code is somehow "free" is hypocrasy.
I think it's more significant problem is that it fails to achieve it's
stated aim of encouraging shared code because I believe that there would
be more shared code if it didn't exist. If people want to argue that the
sky is green, that the grass is blue, or that the GPL'd code is somehow
"free"... live and let live, and good luck to them. I'd only find it
problematic if said people insist upon my agreeing with their idiocy.

I disagree wth the MO of the GPL. It's one thing to ask someone to share
the source to a program or component but the approach of the GPL seems to
be to try and force programmers to share their code. To demonstrate the
flaw in this approach I'd ask which of the following would be more
successful? (a) If I politely asked you (the person reading this post) to
have a look at the source of a program which you've written, or (b) sent a
solicitor to your door with the intent of legally forcing you to hand over
your source code. I can't speak for anyone else but, barring any *really*
good reason, the former would likely prove successful whereas I'd sooner
glue magnets to my HDD before allowing the latter to work.

The counter argument would be that if I find the GPL so disagreeable, then
I should not use GPL on my projects, not use any GPL'd code, and not
contribute to any GPL'd projects. That's fine. I don't and it doesn't
bother me. But if I designed a tool (ie. the GPL) to achieve a goal (ie.
to encourage programmers to share code) and it not only completely failed
to achieve that goal (I, as a programmer, will *never* will never share a
single line of code under the GPL) but actively inhibited that goal from
being achieved (I'll never contribute to any open source/GPL'd projects
*because* of the GPL), I'd be inclined to seriously question the line of
thinking which went into designing that tool in the first place.

regards,
-Brent
Back to top
                    
        
Kain
Member

Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 121

        
Posted: Sun May 30, 2004 6:54 pm Post subject:
What if I release some code unconditional freeware, and somebody takes it
and uses it as a part of a GPL'ed source. Does my freeware code now become
GPL and anybody else who wishes to use it has to comply by the GPL terms?
_________________
Sevag Krikorian
HLA Resources
Back to top
                     
        
donkey
Moderator

Joined: 09 May 2003
Posts: 2852
Location: Canada
        
Posted: Sun May 30, 2004 7:53 pm Post subject:
Hi Kain,

Since you are the original copyright holder and even if you release the
code unconditionally this does not change, no person may abridge or deny
your copyright. So in effect if someone uses that code in a GPL program
then the whole program may no longer covered under the GPL. This is yet
another basic flaw in the license that I say will destroy freeware and
open source. GPL does not allow for sublicensing any part of the covered
applications root code so any use of say my code would invalidate the GPL
license and anyone attempting to use GPL under those circumstances could
be sued. For example if somebody uses a function from the MASM32 library
in a GPL application does that abridge Hutch's copyright ? I believe it
does and therefor any application that uses MASM32 may not be GPL
compliant.

As you can imagine, this is a rats nest of a problem. For example, if SCO
wins it's patent infringement case against Linux, the GPL license of Linux
could be thrown out. Making it open for anybody to do whatever the heck
they please with it. This would also apply to RosAsm though no respectable
programmer would admit to writing code that bad so the point is moot
_________________
Email:
        
Back to top
                     
        
sluggy
Moderator

Joined: 11 May 2003
Posts: 653
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
        
Posted: Sun May 30, 2004 9:49 pm Post subject:
GPL is not good for individuals. I agree with hutch, it is only good for
teams of coders working on an app that is going to be released for "free".
It is important to protect the coders from each other (ie so one of them
can't claim any sort of compensation from the rest of the team for their
contribution), and it is important to protect the app so that the work the
coders did is not ripped off.
Does anyone have an answer about *dynamically* linking to a compiled
module whose source is GPL? I assume it is fine, but does it mean you are
allowed to distribute the GPL component, or does it have to be distributed
separately?
_________________
sluggy

Scitum est inter caecos luscum regnare posse.
(It is well known, that among the blind the one-eyed man is king.)
- Gerard Didier Erasmus (c. 1465-1536)

        
Back to top
                    
        
striker
Member

Joined: 31 Mar 2004
Posts: 175
Location: Melbourne Australia
        
Posted: Sun May 30, 2004 10:23 pm Post subject: I dont get it ...
If the GPL regulations are not for you, then dont use them. Make up your
own style of license. Geesh.
If you have a beef with GPL, then tell them about it.

Maybe a BSD, or Apache style license makes more sense, or better still one
of your own. No one is making you use the GPL license.
_________________
really?
Back to top
                    
        
johnfound
Member

Joined: 21 May 2003
Posts: 241
Location: Bulgaria
        
Posted: Sun May 30, 2004 10:36 pm Post subject:
sluggy wrote:
Does anyone have an answer about *dynamically* linking to a compiled
module whose source is GPL? I assume it is fine, but does it mean you are
allowed to distribute the GPL component, or does it have to be distributed
separately?

The most of GPL-ed libraryes are released actually under LGPL - that
allows use for commercial and closed-source projects. LGPL was developed,
to avoid the limitations of GPL.

Regards.
Back to top
                     
        
donkey
Moderator

Joined: 09 May 2003
Posts: 2852
Location: Canada
        
Posted: Sun May 30, 2004 11:47 pm Post subject:
LGPL may also be moot, the Free Software Foundation does not recongnize
it's legitimacy and is currently fighting it. They see it as a threat to
their monopoly on "Lie-Ware" licensing.

Quote:
If the GPL regulations are not for you, then dont use them.

The problem is that there is so much lying and intentional vagueness that
many programmers may not understand the pitfalls of GPL and find
themselves backed into a corner after a few years. For example if you
release a demo under the GPL and then use that same code in an application
that you intend to sell or in code for the company you work for. You could
be in violation of your own copyright and put either yours or your
employers software at risk. Many programmers, myself included will not
even examine GPL code in order not to risk unintentional license
violations.

This is a very big issue, for example a few months ago some-one posted
some code here that was covered under the GPL and did not mention that
fact. When I inquired about it (luckily) I found out that if I was to use
it in any software I wrote I would be forced to license the complete
package under the GPL. Unfortunately I had seen the code, and though it
was rather simple and direct, I had to code my own version that was
different enough from it that it could not be considered a "derivative
work". You can rest assured however that when I say freeware I mean
freeware and not the GPL crap, you have no need to worry about license
violations if you use any of my code, it is free for any use at all both
object and source, including commercial applications. Except if you
publish under the GPL, those that publish my code under the GPL may be
abridging my copyright and I will not accept that.

Many programmers do not understand this and could be backed into a corner
rather easily. After all the GPL seems mostly designed to keep lawyers
rich and programmers poor.
_________________ 

-- 
Lite vit Maver.
Quantcast