Re: A fucking bunch of lying pussies

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

Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 13:16:23 +0200

På Mon, 31 May 2004 00:44:31 -0400, skrev donkey
<donkey*nospam*@ntl.sympatico.ca>:

> Auric__ wrote:
>> Ah, yes, swearing - crutch for the intellectually deviant. At least when
>> I swear online, it serves a purpose.
>>
>> On Mon, 31 May 2004 03:33:54 +0200, The Wannabee
>> <faq@.@.@.@.@.@szmyggenpv.com> wrote:
>>

To humor you, I have tried to expand on those mails. Allthough I do
consider it an awful waste of my time, all ythe while I dont think you
will ever be willing to reconsider you opinions anyway. Here is my answer
to the posts from the 3 of you that I found dishonest.

På Mon, 31 May 2004 03:33:54 +0200, skrev The Wannabee
<faq@.@.@.@.@.@szmyggenpv.com>:

>
> RANDALL HYDE
> 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.

THIS IS COMPLETE BULLLOCKS. READ THE GPL !

> 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.

YOU ARE AN IDIOT. THEY CAN DICTATE ONLY THAT YOU INCLUDE A NOTE SAYING
WHERE YOU GOT THE CODE. YOU OWN ADDED CODE DOES _NOT_ HAVE TO BE GPL. CAN
YOU NOT BLEEDING READ ?

> 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.

OF COURSE YOU DO SWINDLER !

> 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).

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT TOAD ? THE CODE THATS BEEING SHARED IS JUST
LEFTOVERS. EXCEPT FOR A FEW HONEST EXCEPTIONS, LIKE RosAsm. Do you really
think Carmack would have shared his code if he hadnt had something far
better on his hands? Or some money in his pocket, or some advantage? This
is exceptionally hillerious, comming from the 3 pussys. Cause you dont
even have the self awareness that your software is obsolete. Do you really
think that most people would share their work, if it was truely
revolutionary and had something really new and good about it ? Very few
would. The GPL allows for single developers, and hobbyist to take some
part of the IT revolution, to learn from the giants. It IS a sharing going
on, and it is benefitting many people. Like myself. I got Delphi and
RosAsm for free, because of GPL. GPL is nothing but brlliant.

> 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.

You are such a master of spagetti talk. You want to have the freedom to be
unfree? But you DO have that freedoom. What takes it away from you, is
that you are not capable of offering something truely NEW. It is time, and
the enormous mountain of good programmers that are againts you. NOT the
GPL. The GPL helps you. The GPL makes it possible for you to take others
code, learn from it, clime to the top of the mountain and then add in your
own, or change it to something you can call your own. If the change is
considered enough of a change, significant, you are free to not use the
GPL. But if most of the code is GPL = another peoples work, than of course
you must also release GPL. Its just common courtesy, and programmer soul
to name your sources. Most of what I have learned sofar is from the
Delphi, and Jedi and RosAsm teams. I will never forget that. And when I
use their ideas, some rewritten and some as is. E.g. my random rutine, I
take care to mention it in the code. Thats whats the GPL says. It also
says, that I can, if I want be "freed" from GPL and close the source - IF
- my work is significantly diffrent, to the extent that it can be called a
seperate work. So using RosAsm, and if I write all code my own , and not
borrow anything, or just borrow a little, I can simply disregard the GPL.
The GPL is for protection of OTHER peoples work. For my own work, that are
truely mine, I do not need the GPL.

> 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.

This must be because you never read the GPL.

> 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.

Bull***. Thats bondage. PD is a sure sign you have lost. Because it says.
Rape me. Kill me. *** me. Take my work and do not mention me. PD is a
gang bang. PD is brainless NON self-respect.

> Putting a work in the public domain is not for everyone.

Thank God, that some people still have repect towards their own work. Its
the only way to repect others work. You cannot truely appreciate and
respect others work, until you are able to give some respect towards your
own. PD is saying : Kill me. I have no selfrespect.

Some people
> cannot handle the fact that someone else *might* make some money off
> their work. Guess what? People are doing that anyway

I heard you say this before. If someone earns money from offering support
or whatevewr, then they SHOULD earn money from it. Theres no law against
taking money for a service. Thats ok.

>
> Oh well, I'm not in the Soap Box anymore, so I should get off mine
> Cheers,
> Randy Hyde

>
>
> 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.

You are stupid as a duck. Or a lying bitch. You have to GIVE credits.
Also, the author allready gave away the code, so why the hell do you call
it freeloading? If someone wants you to collect their code, then they give
it away. Then they dont kill you from collecting the code, and doing
something with it, do they ? This has only GOOD benefits for single
developers/hobbyists. This is the only way to make possible single
developer works today. Its just takes too long to invent everything from
scratch. But given code for a GUI etc, it can be easily changed or
improved upon. Rewritten, even by one single man. From this spawns
diversity, which is good. diversity benefits us all, in the long run.

[sniped lots of bs, that really doesnt diserve to be commented]

> donkey
> Moderator
>
>
> Joined: 09 May 2003
> Posts: 2852
> Location: Canada

> 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.

This is nothing but propaganda. This is free imagination.

> 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.

it is clear to me that yes, as you just say , you dont have even read it.
Theese many programmers, where are they ? And where are their work ?

> 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.

This is completly wrong. It is fully legal to learn from GPL code, and
rewrite something new, based on it. You only have to GPL the code, if you
are just copying it. Any isolated parts of an application that are you own
true, self created code, does NOT need to be GPL. Only GPL parts of code
needs to be GPL. Read the damn licence.

> 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.

How stupid do you think we are? You take some GPL code, rewrite it, and
add it to a non GPL product on the one hand, and then on the other hand
claims allmost in the same paragraph that this cannot be done ??????

* * * * LOL * * * *

>
> 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.

This is just propaganda. Designed to frighten the lambs. I know that you
are a good programmer Donkey, no doubt, better than me, much better. But I
stand by my words. You are a ***, and you spread lies. Its allmost as if
you have some secondary motive for doing so.

> _________________ 

-- 
Lite vit Maver.
> Donkey
-- 
Lite vit Maver.
Quantcast