Free software

That includes the freedom to redistribute it in your website for free as soon as you receive a copy. If you were a big name, you could easily steal the entire spotlight from the original creator and nobody would go to their little site and buy it ever again.

You're just trying to avoid actually reading a EULA, aren't you.

Don't worry, nobody wants to read a EULA all the way through. Most companies don't read their own EULAs, as evidenced by Google Chrome's old EULA, which even Microsoft made fun of:
blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/johnmullinax/2008/09/03/google-chrome-google-chrome-eula-claims-ownership-of-everything-you-create-on-chrome-from-blog-posts-to-emails/

Fortunately you have an alternative to the insane bullshit of long convoluted EULAs. An alternative which gives you the same rights and privileges customarily understood as "ownership," as in the ownership of private property such as your house and car, rather than a mere digital sharecropper forced to execute your software according to the software provider's often arbitrary restrictions.

That alternative is the GPL, a license created to guarantee your freedoms as an end-user, in particular the freedom to run the software in any way you see fit and use the software in any way you wish, including allowing other users access to your copy of your software, or to resell your software package, or even give it away for free, effectively granting you as software user the same rights to your software that you have for your hardware.

99% of followers of the "free software" philosophy are either full-blown autists or weak-minded normalfag cucks who actually read and obey end-user license agreements instead of just skipping and disregarding them like everyone else. they don't have the common sense to understand that if a law is not enforced, it may as well not be a law. nobody ever gets in any legal trouble for pirating anything other than a few extremely rare cases involving corrupt judges and retards torrenting some new movie/album just released last week with their real IP.

the other 1% is developers who just want to copy millions of lines of someone else's code and slightly modify it for profit.

What if they reverse engineer your bike because you had it laying out in the open with only a license keeping it secured, and then sell copies to corporations without you ever even knowing?

The whole point is that that """freedom""" completely strangles the ability for people to sell their code.

Why would I need to read someone's EULA? I know what kind of bullshit is in it, and like I said in a post you replied to, you can simply not put all of that cancer into yours.

Licenses are not a polarized "100% communist freedom or a devil's contract" kind of a deal. There's nothing stopping you from giving the user all of the freedoms of the GPL, with the exception of sharing the code or anything you turn it into at home.

Then that's like doing black market deals, selling drugs, etc. Just because you manage to do it without getting caught, doesn't make it legal.

But software is fundamentally really different than hardware, so you can't keep making these comparisons for everything.

No it doesn't: it just prevents you from abusing your users. You can look under the hood of your car to make sure that it's in safe, working condition, and you should be able to do the same for the software that runs your digital life.

That's only part of what defines free software.

The right to redistribute the code as you please is included in the definition of "free software". If you take that out, your software isn't "free" no matter how much you let the user tinker with it.

It's a completely flawed analogy. People can't reverse-engineer a car and sell it by looking under the hood of an existing model, and most people aren't capable of much more than basic car maintenance anyway. (In fact when something like this happens, we call it industrial spying).

Try to counter >>647625's argument. How are small hobbyists and productive individuals safe in a world without basic copyright protection or patent laws?

We aren't the one(s) going around literally making anti-FOSS posts on a daily basis.

Holla Forums plz go.

Can you imagine a world where you were not able to drive a friend or family member, to be driven by a friend or family member, to let a friend or family member borrow your car or to give your car to a friend or family member at will, or to give or sell your car to another owner, without the explicit permission of the car's original manufacturer?

Can you imagine a world where physical things are not the same as digital things?

A proprietary license doesn't stop your poor niglet son from using your software, it forbids you from creating a new copy of it to his and his friend's and his friend's friends computer along with yours.

I like to explain it in terms normal people understand. You are not a plumber (if you are then pretend you are something else for the sake or argument), so you hire someone else to do the plumbing in your home for you. This is like hiring a programmer to write a program for you, or more often buying a program off the shelf or downloading something gratis that's freeware.

Now imagine the plumbing company decided to make the plumbing proprietary: only they can install it, only they have the blueprints, only they may modify it, only they may even look at the pipes, and they use non-standard pipes and connections so no other pipes may be connected unless you buy special adapters, which only the plumbing company will sell. But you are not a plumber, so why would you care? After all, you can't do the plumbing yourself, so what difference does it make?

But here is the thing: what if you don't like the service of the plumbing company anymore? What if there is a leak but the plumbing company won't send anyone over until next week? What if the company goes out of business? You may not be a plumber, but there are many other plumbers out there, yet you cannot hire anyone of them, it all has to go through the plumbing company. In short, they have you by the balls, you entire plumbing does not belong to you, it belongs to the plumbing company and every little thing has to go through them.

In reality no one would hire a proprietary plumbing company, yet people are willing to put with with such restrictions and worse when it comes to their computing. Free (libre) Software is not about money, it is about ensuring the user's freedom that they can control the software instead of being controlled by it. Here are the conditions it has to meet:

For example, if you are running a hospital the developer cannot deny you the use of the software if your hospital is willing to perform abortions. Of course this also works the other way around, if you refuse to perform abortions you cannot be denied either. Of course the developer is not required to provide you with the software or provide support, but once you get hold of it you can use it as you please.

This is analogous to the plumbing metaphor, you can take the program apart and modify it to suit your needs.

This is the controversial one. Basically it legitimizes piracy, you can make as many copies as you want and hand them out like candy. This is also where the analogy with physical objects fail, because you cannot simply duplicate the plumbing in your bathroom at close to zero cost. But when you think about it, it's like DRM: your music/movie/book/game will be pirated either way, you are just putting up extra barriers for the honest people. Anyone serious will want the program from the proper source and support. Support can be sold. If it wasn't for this point then one entity could be able to hold the program hostage by taking the download down and then no one will be able to get a hold of it ever again. That's controlling the users of the program

This is basically the previous two points combined.

The FSF Europe has a pretty good PDF flyer explaining Free Software, I can't attach it due to size, so I'll just give you a link to their flyers section:
fsfe.org/contribute/spreadtheword.en.html#free-software
download.fsfe.org/advocacy/promomaterial/FStools/

Free software allows you to actually own what you buy, it doesn't mean that everyone owns your product, that would communist-like, because you still have to pay if you choose to sell it to get the source code.

I don't understand this GPL/BSD bullshit. If you really want it to be open source/freedom, put it in public domain.

...

Name a single commercially successful free product.

Holy Fuck you are new here.

Public Domain means anyone can take your code an run with it. BSD means anyone can take your code and run with it, but they have to say where they got it from (i.e. you get attribution). GPL says anyone can take your code, but they have to give their code in return.

I'll try to explain it in a loopy libertarian way instead of a loopy communist way. There's elements of both.

Free software is about being able to control your property.

When you buy a chair, you can do whatever you want with it. You can sit on it, you can sell it to someone else, you can repair it, you can pay someone to make it more comfortable, you can burn it even.

When you borrow a chair you can sit on it, as long as you do it carefully enough not to break it. You can't sell it or repair it or have someone else repair it or use it as firewood. The reason for that is that it has to go back to the original person at some point, so you can't properly own it.

When you "buy" a copy of proprietary software it's like a borrowed chair. You can use it for approved purposes, but you (usually) can't give it to someone else, or see how it works, or change it, or have someone else change it. Software can be freely reproduced, though, so they don't need your copy back, so there's no good justification for that. You don't actually own the software, they just pretend you do. Many EULAs explicitly say you don't own the software.

When you get a copy of free software, on the other hand, you do properly own it. You can study it, change it, hire someone else to change it, give it to your friends, even sell it to your friends (free software is about freedom, not price, so as long as the people you sell it to have all those rights it's still free software). The software is really your property.

Why does everyone insist on seeing this subject in such an incredibly polarized way, as if there's only jewish shekel counter's licenses and communist neckbeard licenses?

Just because you can't redistribute copies of the software to anyone you please, doesn't mean you don't own it or can't look inside it or modify it. Those are two different things that you're lumping together like a retard who can't tell the difference between the internet and a web browser.

Also these real world analogies are fundamentally flawed because physical items are not reproducable with a button press. If they were, our laws and society and life would be hugely different, because anyone owning a house could just copy paste the house to all of their friends for free, and copy paste food and live without any cost whatsoever.

RHEL

also GNAT

I don't think that's possible, OP.

I like free and open source software too, I mean, who wouldn't? But the real reason these software justice warriors like it so much isn't because of that ideological ruse they hide behind. They just want to have their guilt-free free shit. That's fine and all, but of course, the self-absorbed ego-trippers in them also want to feel better than others, which is kinda hard that way. So, them wrapping it in all their bullshit is only so it doesn't make them seem like the cheap shits they really are.

I'm laughing at the fourth (>>647611) comment. Just like a typical marxist warrior they fight with labels and calling you right wing extremist if you dare to call their marxist free shit ideology for what it is. Such sensitive egos. False pride is such an ugly thing.

But hey, I don't mind the free shit either. So, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone, they've got my blessing.

Ever been to a school where you had to sign a copyright agreement not to teach anyone else what you learned there?

You can't own rights to knowledge, faggot.

In a word: you own what you got.

Free doesn't mean gratis nor open source. Half-Life is open source but definitely proprietary. Money can be made through support or if the software gives access to a paying service on the net (as long as it's not a DRM for proprietary software).

When I buy a pair of socks, they're mine and I can do whatever the fuck I want with them, like modifying them, taking them apart to see how they're made, giving them away, selling them and even wiping my ass with them. Forbidding you to modify, reverse-engineer, give away, sell or screw around with software you bought is the cuckoldry of rights.

Some software is almost free, but there's much less of it than very proprietary software and free software. Almost free software is obviously not as bad as very proprietary software. I think that's pretty much implied.

I actually said that a proprietary chair is acceptable when you're just borrowing it because you can't freely copy it, and that software is different because you can freely copy it. I addressed that exact point in the post you're replying to.

I think that's basically his point. You have never been to such a school, and you think such a school would be unreasonable, therefore proprietary software is unreasonable.

I think means you can't own the rights to knowledge but you can to software, so it's not a fair comparison

If it were up to Stallman you couldn't own most of the rights to software you can own now, so I don't really see how that matters.

That's why Stallman is a communist meme man, not someone you should un-ironically follow to a t.

Exactly. The DMCA itself is null and void. Thinking you can restrict the flow of mathematics-guided electricity around the world using the law system of a country founded on terrorism is insane no matter how you spin it.

Holla Forums Questions and Support Anonymous 07/21/16 (Thu) 23:42:14 No.629882[Reply]

Bring all your hardware, software and other troubles here.

irony noun [ U ] (OPPOSITE RESULT)

a situation in which something which was intended to have a particular result has the opposite or a very different result

(OP)

Perhaps proprietary software companies are afraid that people will do with their code what they currently do with GPL'd code. Most of us here know who the real freebooters are. The WWW and most of the things you enjoy today were built on the backs of people doing it for free, or was stolen.

Wow, this is really fun. It's almost like you don't have any meaningful point at all and you're just flinging shit at a wall to see what sticks.

People here seem to attribute what they do know to what they know nothing about in order to make sense of it. When all you do is live, breathe, and eat politics, everything looks like a left/right commie/facist debate.

The same dynamic is at play when "series of tubes" Senators are allowed to legislate and regulate things they don't comprehend. For example, Microsoft's monopoly is a good thing because the media says it's capitalism. Hey I know that word "capitalism"! It's synonymous with "good"!

These people are simpletons and they come here to speak about politics instead of anything remotely technical -- because that is beyond them. You know who you are.

> (OP) (OP)
EYYYYYYYYYYY

...

And Jacob boiled Pottage: to whom Esau, coming faint out of the field, said: Give me of this red pottage, for I am exceeding faint. For which reason his name was called Edom.

And Jacob said to him: Sell me thy first birthright.

He answered: Lo I die, what will the first birthright avail me.

Jacob said: Swear therefore to me. Esau swore to him, and sold his first birthright.

And so taking bread and the pottage of lentils, he ate, and drank, and went his way; making little account of having sold his first birthright.

[...]

Esau having heard his father's words, roared out with a great cry: and being in a great consternation, said: Bless me also, my father.

And he said: Thy brother came deceitfully and got thy blessing.

But he said again: Rightly is his name called Jacob; for he hath supplanted me lo this second time: my first birthright he took away before, and now this second time he hath stolen away my blessing. And again he said to his father: Hast thou not reserved me also a blessing?

Isaac answered: I have appointed him thy lord, and have made all his brethren his servants: I have established him with corn and wine, and after this, what shall I do more for thee, my son?

And Esau said to him: Hast thou only one blessing, father? I beseech thee bless me also. And when he wept with a loud cry, Isaac being moved, said to him: In the fat of the earth, and in the dew of heaven from above, shall thy blessing be. Thou shalt live by the sword and shalt serve thy brother: and the time shall come, when thou shalt shake off and loose his yoke from thy neck.

I will try to summarize the point of view of the FSF in a fair and accurate way.

According to the FSF, the following so-called freedoms should be considered as natural rights. That is, violating them is *inherently* wrong, apart from any consequences violating them might have. They do not give any real justification for *why* we should consider these things to be natural rights, although they do go into some negative consequences of violating them (and on this point I agree). The four software freedoms are

The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).

The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).

The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

Note that these freedoms to not distinguish legal measure from technical measures, so anyone who claims that Stallman or the FSF only oppose the legal enforcement mechanisms, is wrong.

Now I can't see how giving up the ability to do these things is a violation of your natural rights. Clearly all these things are beneficial in themselves, but that doesn't mean that they natural rights.

On the other hand, I do agree that proprietary software can be dangerous. This needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis, e.g. a proprietary OS is capable of more damage to the user's privacy than proprietary JavaScript running in the browser sandbox (although the sandbox is imperfect and still leaks some information).

Proprietary software is a departure from the "natural state" of software, in which people share the code freely. It is, essentially, a refusal to cooperate with others. Just read the first chapter of Stallman's Free as in Freedom.

sagitter.fedorapeople.org/faif-2.0.pdf

Then GPL isn't really freedom, it enforces freedom, which in itself isn't free.

then by that statement one could say I'm not free until I'm free to take out someone else freedoom. But then, I could argu with kant logic that taking someone else freedoom isn't a rational thing to do, then from there I could say that you're not in a free state when taking out someone freedoom.

Are laws against slavery "not really freedom" either?

it's a paradox for sure, but at least people can't fuck your face legally.

In our actual world if you give people absolute freedom they will take away the freedom of others, look at the tivo look at android, look at azure.

These companies uses free software that in itself is good but they restrain people witch goes against the freedom of use.

Yes.

In that case saying that the GPL isn't really freedom is just pedantic.

For freedom it's better to have laws against slavery, whether those laws are "really freedom" or not.

Kind of. You aren't allowed to change the license under which it's distributed. Suppose you give or sell me a chair, and you give me a materials list and instructions for recreating that chair from source. Am I really free if you also stipulate that I *must* provide the same materials list and instructions to the person who buys it from me?

I don't want you boat anchor license. BSD is superior.

Unless I modified the chair or am giving it away routinely I can just say "ask Bob for the material list and instructions of you want those".

Software is different than chairs in that it costs nothing to duplicate.

Stop being a freeloader you parasite.

The GPL doesn't exist to allow you to do whatever you want. Its purpose is to give everyone, you included, control over the source code. No, you're not allowed to restrict others' freedom under the GPL. That's the single freedom the GPL takes away from assholes who want to restrict other peoples' freedeom.

...

Then I should be able to take your software imaginary property, modify it and sell it or redistribute it without fear of legal recourse, in a capitalist society, right?
Oh wait.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_prime

Anyone with a computer owns the means of production. Computing is communism, GPL or not.

But there is absolutely no reason to assume that this is the "natural state of software", whatever that means. It's only your interpretation.

Why isn't someone entitled to keep and defend the things they've made? Why shouldn't they be allowed to own their work? What business is it of yours? It's bizarre to me how I feel like the libertarian in these discussions.

And if someone pays for a piece of software, why shouldn't they be entitled to share it with their friends? They paid for it, they should be able to do what they like with it

You'd understand reading the book, but tldr:

Computers were once the province of academics. Stallman lived in this environment, with everyone constantly collaborating, sharing code, helping each other to improve it, making sure it would serve every user's needs. It was not a self-serving thing, not for the benefit of a small clique, but in a truly altruistic sense: hey, here's a little something I can do that might help others, maybe every computer user in the world can take my creation and benefit from it, and then improve on it and help others equally.

The laser printer incident was his first big clash with a disagreeing worldview: the laboratory had this device with an issue that they could easily fix, except the code was secret and they were not allowed to make something better. That was a betrayal to everything Stallman held as true and good.

Ignore anything GNUtards tell you. They are a Jew-led cult of SJWs.

Truly free software laughs at GNUfags in the face.

Because when you buy the software you are purchasing a license to use it, not ownership of the code.

Stallmans "natural state of software" is really the "natural state of software in MIT AI lab in 1980".

Maybe you should stop being an oversensitive burger that shits himself when he hears anything that doesn't sound like it came from Reagan's mouth

Legally, sure. I'm talking about morally though.

Why do you deserve the unrestricted fruit of another mans labor? If someone wants to GPL it sure go ahead, but a programmer has no moral obligation to GPL his code.

That's not how it works, faggot. The GPL is necessary because software has special legal needs. It is literally ones and zeroes and lacks any natural scarcity like a physical object.

You cannot reduce everything to these overly simplistic scenarios, that is not how the real world works. Even Holla Forums knows that lolbertard logic is flawed.

Why does the programmer get the right to restrict what other people do with the fruit of his labour, after it is lawfully purchased? If someone sold me a pen and then said "you can't do x,y,z with this pen" I'd tell them to fuck off. Would you not? Why is software any different?

See

If someone did try to do that with stationery, they would be out of business in a week, yet GPL/LGPL software has continued to flourish. Surely there is a reason for this?

typo?

you linked to the same reply twice

Because you didn't purchase ownership of the code, you purchased a license to use it. When you buy a pen, you buy ownership of the pen itself. This is not the case for software.

And, again, licenses are unethical.
That's why people get so asshurt about copyleft, especially about copyleft on the server (Affero.)
it turns copyright licenses around on those who wish to fuck people over.

So the programmer should have no means of a reward for his efforts save begging for donations on his patreon? Do you say the same about patents?

What you probably meant to say was "licenses except the GPL are unethical" but I'd remind you "ethics" is defined from each persons point of view, not from an objective standard. To me the GPL is unethical as it requires a programmer to relinquish ownership of the code he labored to produce to the """"global community""""(freedom 2 & 3).

It's been said multiple times now

also FWIW you're replying to a couple of different anons. I am not , I think that some licenses are ethical but there should be severe restrictions as to their power.

And I'm informing you that what you believe is "purchasing" the code is actually purchasing the permission to execute the program, not the program itself.according to most licenses

I can understand a dislike for the system, but in Stallman's world the only programmers left would be hobbyists doing it on their free time. I'll leave it at disagreements in our value systems.

Jesus user, can you put the legal semantics aside?

I'll rephrase: after some guy has given the dev money in exchange for a copy of the program

that's how the programmer has a reward for his efforts other than begging for donations on his patreon

Think about how your hare-brained scheme sounds.

This is why no one fucking takes you seriously except for suits and greedy kikes, and why copyleft is a thing.

I like that people can use the software that I make without having to worry about stupid licensing shit.

I also like that if something isn't working right, they can go to my repo and make a bug report right there, or if they're feeling generous, they can fix it for me.

I also like being criticized so that I can improve as a professional.

There's really no big downside to releasing all my software that I don't plan to sell for free.

Also, the argument that free software for everything would make everyone hobbyists is totally bullshit.
How do you think the Linux kernel gets developed? People who are paid.
To insinuate that free software is distinct from "professional" software is just absurd. The most successful free software project is an example of that.

Stuff I develop I don't release unless I believe someone else will find what I've done is useful. And it's always copyleft.
There's many ways to monetize it, if someone wanted to pay me to add a feature that's great. If someone wanted to pay me for support, I'd take the offer.

I wouldn't pretend that I have any right to tell them what to do with their computing environment, though.

In fact, for my projects I'd prefer a good contribution over purchase of support or sponsoring me to develop the feature/change itself.

If you can't understand this mindset, that it's all about good software, than maybe you should just stick to ripping people off by means of copyright law with your monopoly your precious "imaginary property."

The linux kernel isn't a good example.

Microsoft is the richest software company in the world
And even with their billions they can't make their operating system work correctly.

Yeah, and it's always been a dogshit company.
So what's your point? That even if you require payment to execute your software it's not a guarantee of the subjective "quality"?
Wow, what a revelation.
Which is why it's much more valuable to have others contribute than recieve compensation, if you truly care about the software.
Those that can, can, and probably will if they find it useful.
Those that can't, compile binaries for them in exchange for compensation. Charge for support. Charge for sublicenses/exceptions. Ask people to sponsor features.

To say that free software can't be professional is absurd.

One way around the whole profit thing is crowdfunding.

Just pay someone to code what you and release the source.

Linux Kernel is an exception rather than the rule. Why would a company spend money developing complicated software if any user can then redistribute it for free? It's a financial loss. The fact is a lot of the software around today would not be developed in Stallmans world. Why would IBM spend millions making Watson if any competitor could take their code and run it for free(excepting maybe an initial purchase)?

Some people have mouths to feed. "Caring about the software" is pseudo-intellectual bullshit designed to hide your hippy nonsense in moral superiority. The fact is Free Software hasn't delivered anything amazing except for the GNU system and Linux kernel, and even then large parts of the GNU system have been overtaken in performance by non Free software.

The problem with that is that crowd funding is unreliable. Patreon, goFundMe and kickstarter routinely fail to produce anything impressive or difficult. It's not viable.

Do you get this angry when you can't replace the engine of a rental car?

You are forced to release the source code. Your freedom to not release source code is restricted by GPL.
Retard.

No, it's pretty much the norm nowadays.
Can you name any software that developers get really get excited over that's proprietary? Except for the most obscure of analysis engines, I can't name any.
And, with the many examples I laid out, there's ways to profit off of free software that isn't traditional 'I have the right to tell people how to use my software.'

What's funny is, you pretend that people don't already have the capability to redistribute and execute your precious proprietary software, when they do. It's just against the law, yet you can't do anything about it.
If Microsoft can't stop everyone from redistributing their shit and playing without paying, your hare brained scheme seems a little out of touch with reality.
OpenOffice/LibreOffice, now replacing Office in governments and schools around the world. Made by companies who are out to profit, totally free, and many options for support.
Ardour, class-platform DAW, makes money by subscribing to pre-compiled binaries but the software is free. Better if not on the same level as very expensive DAWs.
Firefox and Chromium, both free software.
There's no need to bring up any more examples, because it's clear that you're just a delusional faggot with the complaining about "hippies."
Companies already spend millions developing something, like Google's deep learning platform or Facebook's language recognition platform, and then give it away for free. So you really don't have an argument.
Why is it that faggots like you always try to shoehorn bizarro physical analogies into this discussion?
That's not even internally consistent. Are you brain damaged?

How does anything you said conflict with anything he said?

...

Yeah and it's the "only" freedom that allows you to have a state sanctioned monopoly on your imaginary property thanks to greedy kikes like yourself making reverse engineering perilous due to the DMCA.
If anything is communist, it's the state sanctioned monopoly of proprietary software, where you can get sued for interfering with execution to determine how a program runs.

Fuck off, communist.

Top lel!
What the fuck does DMCA and imaginary property have to do with people being forced to publish their source code? You are the red kike trying to claim the contents of other people's computers as (((public))) property, and use the state to force people to publish it against their will.

Hang yourself, kike.

Some people call protective FOSS licenses more "communist" for restricting individual freedom to deal in the software, but actually it's the other way around. FOSS involves an exchange of my goods (my software) for your services (changes and modifications I can merge back into my project). Permissive open source licenses give you something for nothing.

Microsoft Office is still dominating revenue streams. It's not even a competition. LibreOffice still can't support docx(go whine about not following standards elsewhere). The MSOffice suite won't be overtaken anytime soon.

Just checked the Wikipedia page
But I'll give it to you, it does look like one hobbyist was able to produce something good. Almost like I said, you claim its the pinnacle of software in its field, but the creator is nothing more than a hobbyist making shit from it.

Firefox is the least secure browser of the big three by miles. There's nothing technically impressive about firefox anymore and there hasn't been for years. Chromium has been known to download and execute binaryblobs. It's not free software, see bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=786909.

Produced by funding from non-free software! Google didn't crowd fund Google Brain and Facebook didn't crowd fund its language recognition platform. They built it proprietary and decided to release it. Free software has no claim on those successes.

You don't own the code you want to modify, just as you don't own the car you want to modify. The contract(license) forbids you from modification in both cases. Do you sperg out about how the car contract is denying your freedom since you """"own"""" the car(as much as you own windows source code from buying a license)?

Do you hate the patent system this much as well?

The freedom not to release source code is part of the freedom to restrict others' freedom.

Remember that you only have to release source code if you're actually giving the software to someone else.

(and only to the person you're giving the software to)

Oh no! You've been bested! Dont' worry, just pull the strawman card and disown your original argument!

Yes, it can.
That's not due to superiority, that's due to lock-in.
What the fuck are you talking about?
It's directly contrary to what you claimed, you fucking retard.
It's free.

The real question is whether or not Americans can argue about a single fucking thing on the internet without resorting to calling someone or something a communist.

So far, the answer seems to be a resounding "no".

I haven't been bested, I was busy actually working instead of LARPing about how I can rip people off with a state sanctioned monopoly.
Because it's a state sanctioned monopoly.
If it weren't a state sanctioned monopoly, I could easily reverse your shitty proprietary software and write my own without fear of recourse, if it's particularly novel.
The fact is that software is an even worse state than the time when Stallman created copyleft in conjunction with Eben Moglen. It's completely state sanctioned communism.
I love how you try to sidestep the fact that this is state sanctioned "communism." It's quite cute
No, that's retards like you who claim to be able to restrict what I can do with your program on my machine. It's exactly the opposite. Proprietary software is the only one who does that.
Who said anyone had to publish? It's at their discretion. It's not at people's discretion with copyleft, and that's exactly how it should be.
See, copyleft is taking the laws you love so much, state sanctioned communism, and turning them against you. Then people like you sperg out like ITS ANUDDAH SHOAH.

Much like the owner of this website spergs out with the prospect of using copyleft on the server. You see people's real motivations when copyleft comes up, it's easy to seperate the suits and kikes from others.

I hate using the term but I love throwing the fact that they have a state sanctioned monopoly on execution, modication, or research into their particular execution of math back in their face when they try to claim free software is communist.

And people unironically wonder why Holla Forums is dying. The Holla Forums retards are doing their absolute best to drive everyone away. Funny, it's just like how they're driving voters away from Trump.

How ironic, seeing how you're bumping the thread with bait.

Legalizing piracy does not mean producers have to make it easy for you. If you want to reverse engineer my program then go right ahead, but don't demand that I provide you with all the comments and original formating.
Again, you were arguing with strawmen. You can scream "KIKE" and "RED" at the scarecrow that's trying to punish you for stealing his intellectual property until you're coughing up blood, but that doesn't change the fact that you are trying to take away people's freedom to not publish source code.
I can while away the hours; concur with the flowers; consulting with the raiiiin...
GPL.

Yeah, I hate Holla Forums so much. They always ruin everything. Holla Forums should fuck off back to Holla Forums with the rest of their cumskin kind.

I browse Holla Forums daily and still support free software. Damn the shilling against Holla Forums on Holla Forums is real.

And yet, that's against the law.
muh imaginary property
Again, that's their discretion. Don't pretend you have the ability to tell someone what they can do with the software once it's in their possession though.
You're the one arguing with strawmen, because Stallman doesn't want everyone to be required to publish source.
What he wants is to not be hampered by someone else refusing to share it, even if you can make improvements, due to arcane licensesing schemes. Especially the restrictions on what you can and can't do with the software in your posession.
Software is not a fucking rental car.
GPL is taking the copyright restrictions and fighting back. That's your perogative if you want to link to a GPL licensed program. But you can't do so without producing the source code if someone has come into possession of a binary.

The GPL would not be necessary, Stallman readily admits, if it were not for copyright and licesnes restricting what you were able to do with software.

You are not Stallman.
So how does he expect to eliminate this obstacle? Asking authors nicely?
It's not public property either.
So you admit to being not only a communist, but also a liar?

No shit, but we're talking about free software.
Until copyright stops being insane, the answer is copyleft.
It's on my property, and your imaginary property can be duplicated as many times as anyone wants. You're not deprived of anything. Nothing in your copy is damaged or misplaced if I attempt to modify it or redistribute it further. It's not a rental car. Your analogy is about as fucking stupid as a toddler banging their head on a doorknob repeatedly.
No, the only communist here is you. You seek to enforce your claim on "imaginary property" through a state sanctioned monopoly, and further restrict the right of someone to modify, study or redistribute that imaginary property.
Claiming that copyleft is communism is nonsense. It provides the free market, where proprietary software does not.

Your patent argument is also bunk. Math is not patentable, so neither is software.

You should see Holla Forums.

maybe because --most-- of Holla Forums anons are so obtuse that they can't imagine anything that isn't in their mindset.

Free software didn't begin because of pure ideology it started because someone couldn't work normally because someone refused to share the manuals of the tools he wanted to fix/use/upgrade.

It's about having sharing tools and having control over the said tools.

If someone can't understand this, and that is the most basic of freedom, none can help that person and it is better to speak to someone else because you won't can't help that person.

Freedom is communism now?

according to Holla Forums and America, yes.

...

It doesn't say that everything must belong to everyone, it says that things must truly belong to the people who have them.

You're not obligated to share a free program with anyone, but you're always allowed to share a free program with someone if you want to. Nobody can forbid you from doing that.

I bet eating vegetables you grew in the garden (instead of a Freedom Certified™ Big Mac) is communist in a Burger's eyes.

The relationship is: "I kinda like your shit, but let me copy it and improve it. There, the shit is now gBetterShit." The only gotcha is that you typically have to re-license it under the same license, and give the previous author(s) credit.

Keep buying into obvious divide and conquer.

rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe's_Law

You have a copy of this software on your computer, therefore you can do what you want with this software and not be punished for it. Otherwise known as keep kikey legal fuckery out of my fucking shit.

If software licenses didn't exist, neither would copyleft. Pretending the "intellectual property" problem doesn't exist will not immunize you from it, which is why permissive licenses are usually shit, unless a piece of software is very simple and not worth taking credit for.

If you think you can own a thought, you should have your skull ventilated.

That's basically communism.

a) Diminishes and demeans the work of others (falsely implies anyone can do it)
b) Sense of entitlement to someone else's property

Product schematics are literally just information too, do they belong to everybody?

lol at burgers pretending to understand grown up philosophy

Sure, why not? You aren't obligated to share them with others, but if they discern them on their own accord, you have no right to claim the schematics are "yours".

This is why it is technically not illegal to reimplement proprietary software from scratch, it's just not practical because office politics and bureaucracy tend to lead to overengineering. FOSS sometimes has the same problem, but can deal with it because it is not at the mercy of stockholders, whom not even rich businessmen deserve the wrath of.

I'm not a burger.

What do you mean by meritocracy? What does that have to do with what I said?

You tell me, if it is irrelevant to the context of your post then I don't know how to decipher it. It's the kind of aimless babbling I'd expect from my uncle on Facebook.

If you get together with a guy and build a car with him you don't want the Jews at GM stealing your design. Simple. You get paid when you are contracted to write the code for someone, you have to hand over the source code so if you decided to become an usurious jew they can still use what they've got. It's pro little guy, everything else is for rent seeking bastards. Holla Forums enough for you?

You hate freedom. You believe in mass espionage.
The source code is on my property. You don't deserve a single line of it.
What analogy, you inbred?
Where did I say that, you inbred?
Where did I say that, you inbred?

Yes, but being obliged to share the source code is an infringement of freedom. You are forcing people to release their own private information. True freedom means consumers can use software as they wish, and authors can withhold information as they wish.

I TAKE YOUR SOFTWARE AND HAND IT TO THE POOR.

THANK YOU COMRADE

...

More pro-JPL lies.
From the gnu.org website:
>You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

Not him, but are you okay with NSA spying on you then?

My argument was in terms of IP, not a literal argument.

I also believe in personal property, but that doesn't mean I believe martial law should enforce it.

...

McCarthyism doesn't work on the internet, bub. Go back to >>>Holla Forums.

GPL only forces you to share changes to your source code if you release the software publicly. If you make no changes to the source, each copy of the software is effectively yours.
Let's say you own a company and use in-house modified GPL software. If you do not release it, there is no problem. You can make as much money as you like. But if you release the software online, you need to share the changes you made to it. This means the people who designed the basis of your in-house software get to integrate these improvements if they want, in exchange for you being able to use their software to begin with.
If anything, copyleft is a blessing to small business trying to compete with government favored corporatocracy. You like free market capitalism, don't you?

Name calling is not an argument.

If you feel this way, don't use the software. Simple as that.

>McCarthyism doesn't work on the internet, bub. Go back to >>>Holla Forums.
Oh, I thought I was a commie. Go back to Holla Forums, goon.
Source code is none of your business. It's mine to keep and publish as I wish. Drink bleach, spy-lover.
Neither is strawmanning, inbred.
Same can be said about both proprietary software and truly free software, inbred.

Stop spreading ignorant bullshit. Actually read GPL and then speak. You can't do that. Plus this has never happened.

Then don't release the binaries. Keep everything to yourself. By not giving your users the source code, you are automatically fucking them. Hopefully, the time will come when users won't use/trust devs like you.

I won't try to make sense of a web of personal attacks.
If you release it online, it's others' business, faggot. If you don't like it, the SFLC will have a word with you.
Googling "logical fallacies" is also not an argument.
Feel free to be exploited as free labor, we can turn your code into GPL software anyway if we feel like changing it. It's probably horrible code, though.

Because GPL is not free. I'm not free to publish the binary under GPL, therefore the copy of source code I have is not mine. How hypocritical of you.
Perhaps, but freedom means that I can do that. Just like free market entails freedom to make shitty products and free speach entails hate speech. Do you not believe in freedom?

I wouldn't expecting such advanced thinking of an inbred like yourself would be like trying to run a large server off my pocket calculator. Don't worry.
Fuck off it is. If you don't trust it, don't download it. I'll post what I want.
Gonna free the shit out of me, are they?
I didn't google anything, you inbred.
Googling "steven molyneux memes" is not an argument, you inbred.
So you want to turn my hard work into your own imaginary property? Freedom™!

No, you are not obliged to hand out the source code like it's candy. But if you give me the software, then you have to also give me the code. If you only want to use your software privately no one has the right to knock on your door and demand the code. You either keep it all to yourself or you pass it all along. You don't get to put people on a leash.

Saying that this is an infringement of your freedom is like saying you live in a police state because you can't just go around murdering people as you please. And you know what, if your freedom to fuck over people is taken away I'm entirely fine with it.

Which means I'm not free to do what I want with my binaries. GPL stops people from putting leashes on people by putting leashes on people.
That's a stupid and nonsensical analogy.

That's the entire fucking point. You can't fuck people up the ass, and they can't fuck you up the ass. Only a shit person would complain about a license that doesn't allow him to fuck other people up the ass. Do you want to fuck other people up the ass?

Anyone who uses a permissive license like BSD or MIT for their code is figuratively lubing up their ass and saying "come, steal my code and give me nothing back in return". The GPL exists to prevent assholes like you from taking other people's work and running with it.

No, it's not. Your freedoms end where other people's freedoms begin. I sure would love to go bash Bob's head in and take his house, but if I were allowed to do that it would mean other people would be allowed to bash my head and and take my house. I don't want to have my head bashed in, so I am willing to forfeit my right to bash other people's heads in.

If you could harvest autism from internet comments and sell it, this thread could pay Holla Forums server costs for 20 years.

All the major advances in the computer industry are driven by autism.

Then stop calling it "free".
And how is withholding part of my program taking away others' freedoms? Am I forcing anyone to download and use it? A less absurd analogy would be me saying we live in a police state because I can't assist suicide.
Bob doesn't want his head bashed in or his house stolen.

It's not about the developer's freedom, it's about the user's freedom. You can thank the same horrible communist oppression for the fact that every food product comes with a list of ingredients so you can see how shit the food you buy is. I bet food companies would love withholding that list from you, just as you love withholding the source.

...

Says the inbred. In fact, if you were any more inbred you'd be a sandwich, you fucking loser.

At last you can see

That true freedom is a self-contradiction

Because in order to have true freedom, you must have the freedom to limit someone else's freedom

And in order to provide true freedom, you must give other people the power to limit your freedom

Free software should be freedom, but look at the facts
- Ubuntu/Canonicam is pushing mandatory "free" shitty drivers over nVidia ones, even if older cards are not supported, fucking up the users who did the mistake to leave auto-updates.

- the " community" offers little or no support to side projects that tends to doom anyone who develop, by example a good free software for art and photography, because they does not really fit with the "philosophy" of developers.
according to that "philosophy", the Gimp is a good software , and all free software developers should use it as an example and contribute to it following the philosophy that led to its development, but on the other hand, Krita has been designed with a windows philosophy rather than with a linux philosophy. Linux guys hate Krita, and prefer the Gimp, while graphic artists will feel Krita being more coimplete and useable, while the Gimp will forever remain a fucking clusterfuck, a joke.

The same thing goes on with the development of a free alternative to Windows: ReactOS. In a decade, they started from merely a dos-based windows clone (3.1) into developing a FOSS NT kernel, working, that supports drivers, hardware, APIs and natively all Windows PE (.exe) programs. You can use free software that comes in that format (.exe) or if you want, use professional software like Adobe Photoshop, quark Xpress, play games etc.
ReactOS community also contributed a lot into improving Linux's WinE system, but in return the Linux devs and community never supported the ReactOS project, because they see ReactOS and its developers; a very small community of determined programmers the enemies of Linux.

For sure, Linux took 20 years from a barely working GUI borrowed from Unix world into making a finally working GUI and stable drivers. ReactOS crew came from nothing and reverse engineered how Windows works and delivered the equivalent of Win2000/XP in less than a decade.

So what is the meaning of "free" software if we have to follow an ideology close to communism, which is the opposite of freedom?

I can't understand why people keep drawing so many terrible comparisons and analogies here. Being forced to publish the source code to software has absolutely nothing in common with exposing a list of ingredients for consumer food products.

I never heard someone say they hated Krita.

I don't know how you expect "the Linux devs and community" to support ReactOS. What did you mean by this?

What the fuck are you on about? Linux people love Krita, and ReactOS is far from being finished

People say that right here in Holla Forums, while praising GIMP as superior

SAGE this shit bait thread.

No you fucking commies, that is not how it works

Krita and GIMP are made for different purposes, anyone who claims one to be superior probably doesn't know what they're talking about

You can just not distribute binaries. : ^ )

That probably used to be true, but Krita has a lot of features that you'd expect from an image manipulation program.

krita remain tainted by the fact that it is mainly used by furries to draw degenerate shit

...

I know it's bait, but I'll bite it... Linux was introduced in 91, early distros used CDE, and by 99 there were also KDE and GNOME. Interface-wise, it seems to me that all of them were at least on par with Windows at the time.