Admit it: copyleft is communism in action

Did you ever consider that Holla Forums may be such shit because people will seriously reply to low effort threads like this one?

Is literally the opposite of
An absence of one means you have the other

More like copyright is communism:

Intellectual property is an actual term (an umbrella term). It's just that people are retarded and conflate trademarks with copyright, patents, and trade secrets.
So you've got retards saying you should register trade secrets, that you'll lose copyright if you don't enforce it, that Windows is patented, or that iPads are copyrighted.

...

What are you on about?

No

There is no isms there is only: "What's in it for me?".

(reply to self)
and btw nice img op

I've always viewed free software as more libertarian then communism

wtf i love copyleft now

Just contribute something to GNU something and you will taste some heavy weight capitalism with copyright butthurts.

Copyleft means control on your own work. It's have nothing to do with communism where "owning" doesn't existed in many area.
Copyleft is more like bourgeois moralism as a smart user said in the past.

then why has piracy been legal in all communist countries?

please explain

Soviet Union:

Linux distos:

Communism means the means of production belongs to the nation and not to private individuals. Copyleft cannot be communism because people are allowed to produce private copyleft software. Copyleft has nothing to with the means of production.

news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11953044
lists.gnu.org/archive/html/nano-devel/2016-08/msg00045.html

Sure. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Communism doesn't work in the realm of material goods, but it works great in the realm of infinitely-replicable software.

So what? It doesn't change the fact that copyright is a commie-tier scheme

This is where your argument falls apart

More like treating public goods as private goods is fucking retarded and should have never happened.

correct

Low effort faggot.

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.

Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called "Linux", and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.

There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called "Linux" distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.

this

So its more like what socialists and anarchists wanted than what communist nations gave them.

bump

Shit:

Water:

Fuck you I hope you get banned.
this thread was going to die, it should just be deleted.

This is what Eric Raymond thinks. You succededly trolled him.

...

Wasted trips, kill yourself communist queer.

No. The most unique quality of Linux distros is that the software is not centrally planned and developed. Most of the system is developed in separate independent projects. Debian doesn't control the Linux kernel, or glibc, or GCC, or X11, or GNOME. They control dpkg and APT and that's about it. It's extremely decentralized.

Im as sad that you typed that I typed.

This is why I hate Holla Forums. It's dominated by a bunch of retarded communists who never amount to anything.

oh boy! It's another episode of Holla Forums False Flags as Holla Forums and Pretends to be Retarded.

I don't know if that board exists, but that's where you belong.

Hardly communism more like regular faggotry.

Agreed. It protects monopolies, and monopolies are the enemy of the free market.

The irony is so fucking thick. You claim you need everything to be FOSS, but for what reason? You assholes don't read the source code, let's be real here. You just assume other people rigorously read it for you and take your security on faith. It's the same thing as proprietary, but there people are actually PAID to improve it. Where as FOSS you have lazy cunts who are probably shit at coding anyway. You're free to read the source code if you want... but you won't. I guess you have the freedom to be spied on because that's exactly what is happening.

And you know what? Linux is just doomed to be in a spiral of shit. It will keep being scatterbrain and never improve much compared to Mac OS X or FreeBSD because there it is impossible to motivate people to make anything great under the GPL, since you're forced to live on donations, because if you dare lock up the source code on something to be able to make a business out of it, Stallman and his jew lawyers will end your life. Stallman is just a glorified patent troll. But hey, at least you communists have what you want. An OS representing the state of the shitty living conditions during the USSR. :^)

Everyone works according to their ability voluntarily and takes according to their need. Its a perfect example of a sort of Utopian anarcho-communist society. It just gives me more reasons to support copyleft.

Please do not conflate freedom with technical aptitude. Users do not need any technical aptitude to have freedom. Users who need technical help auditing their source code needs to find a skilled helper to help. What does this mean in practise? It means users need to find PAID help to improve it.

cnet.com/au/news/bill-gates-and-other-communists/

So it's freedom to be shit then. Because in my mind, "knowing what a program does and having the freedom to change it." isn't enough. As much as people on this board chant the word freedom, they also chant security and safe. Which is most important to you? Being able to read all the source code or having a secure system?

I do not like this brand of freedom because it's communist. A real brand of freedom would have been the BSD license which is "You cannot sue us". Look how many businesses have sprung out of BSD. Linux is killing itself thanks to Stallman. This is where Linus and Stallman had their conflict. Not allowing people to lock their code is taking away a persons freedom. It is exactly why BSD will ALWAYS be a better system than Linux will ever be. And some people in this thread are speaking about the free market. The free market is allowing people to choose what they wish to do with their product. Lock the code or not, and then for the people to choose which of those they want to buy. The proprietary software market won. People wanted security and stability over unstable archaic "freedom" (which isn't actually freedom, just communism).

You guys are a bunch of fucking pinkos.

You have a secure system when users have the freedom to study the technical details of the system. You have a secure system when users have the freedom share the improvements that are developed. It is impossible to have a secure system when users are forbidden to study the details. It is difficult to cooperate when users are restricted of the freedom to share software.

I can hardly believe that "Linux is killing itself because of the GPL" when it's very obvious the Linux exists everywhere.

Oh man you're so naive. That is simply not true. You have a secure system when competent people improve your system. This isn't the case with Linux.

What I meant is Linux will not see any significant improvement because there is no real motivation for it because you're not allowed to close the system and make a profit from having a top notch system. So "killing itself" aka stuck in mediocrity.

ESR is a slimy piece of shit, I hope he reads this thread and gets mad.

You said it right there. You know co-ops are socialism right?

Cool story bro

I proclaim false to all the claims you've put forth

Thank god the eye is drawn to the greentext so I could stop right there.

Everyone here can see you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Your posts are riddled with logical inconsistencies, baseless assertions and reeks of consumer shilling.

I feel like you probably attack people who use ad blockers and prefer shiny over efficient and useful. I bet you lease a car that you either can barely afford or that your parents pay for.

nice reddit spacing fag

goons pls go

Only free software can be trusted to be secure. You dont have to read it but someone else can audit or anyone who can read it can report anything they find.
Companies selling proprietary software have *zero* incentive to make their systems secure unless they're marketing them primarily to other corporations, but even then not always(windows). When they do ensure its actually secure in order to sell it to people other than consumers, its generally Linux, not BSD, and its always FOSS. See redhat and such.
Otherwise they have every incentive to backdoor them for the benefit of governments and selling data to advertisers, etc. Consumers are idiots and can be easily manipulated into not caring about security or thinking your product is secure whether or not it is by advertising. As we see happen IRL. With apple for example.

Oh boy why always you stupid gringos think things like this?

If you want some actual arguments
mises.org/library/against-intellectual-property-0

Of course, goy! You don't need to see the source code to find out what we hid in it! And promoting permissive licenses clearly means that you don't think anyone should be paid for their work!

This time it actually was redditspacing though

literally any rational argument against IP is also an argument against private property in general. private property is theft from the commons.

Isn't it ironic that the proprietary software developers call us communists? We are the ones who have provided for a free market, where they allow only monopoly.
--RMS
Shit thread
Holla Forums pretending to be /letftypol/

WEW

GNU/Linux distos:
Bullshit everyone can make a copy of the SOURCE CODE faggot learn what is the source code and a BINARY.
What shortages ?
Making a copy of a software cost less than a few cents.
There is literally billions of copy in the wild being copied and copied again.
Software that install malware and spyware and you can't make modification to do against such shit aka= Stallins dream
No you don't, people can sell the software and support/services isn't gratis
Virus exploit ads to spread themselves.
There is already enough bad advertisements in the physical world that parasites your brain.

TL;DR
Proprietary software is communism.
Free/libre software is freedom/democracy.

Actually the book I linked argues (with actual arguments not empty statements) that any argument in -favor- of IP is against private property. Check it out it's like 80 pages.

He's just being rhetorical. He also supports Bernie and Corbyn, and loves Rosa Luxemburg.

Horseshit. If I let someone live at my place, should they be allowed to invite whoever they want to stay without me having a say?

It's anti-business to say someone cannot own something while selling/leasing out the right to use it while still having all the rights to the item.

I just hate arguing with lobotarians and pinkos about this. You people haven't worked a single day in your life it seems like. It's like you're completely detatched from reality. Check out the FOSS shit that is out there and compare how good it is compared to the proprietary. Proof is in the pudding.

The only argument you have now is the commie type freedom. After vault 7 you can't even call it secure.

Wrong allegory, the space in "your place" is a scarce resource.
Correct allegory for IP rights would be:
"If I let someone live at my place, should other people be allowed to let someone live at their places?" (Claiming ownership of the non scarce "let someone live at my place" idea)

Not an argument.

How quaint.
user you don't mix those
Do you mix political views with a hammer ?
No ?
Then you don't do it with software either.
Software is a tool just like a hammer.

Not the user you responded too.
Not an argument about what ?
When you buy shit you own it, end of story.
If you are blocked in some kind of way then you aren't really the owner of it, you just rent it.
Do you fell in control with blocked objects ?

Public servers on the Internet
W3Cook May 2015
GNU/Linux 96.6%
FreeBSD 1.7%
Windows Server 1.7%

Because every chan user are known to be non depressive workers :^)

Because the actual reality is working just great.
You know what we should continue letting people keep coming in the country and we should continue to let companies making shit products in china and users should never be in control of their product they really should only rent them and have no rights whatsoever on it.

He stated that it is "anti-business" to not be able to impose your will on the use other people make of their private property. Did not provide an argument for that statement.
Assuming you are referring to FOSS here, I can't see any violation of property rights or liberties on selling (or renting) you a "compiled code" as long as you are allowed to do whatever you see fit with the former, like using your private property (computer) to make a copy of it.

On the other hand, if you demand from me an "uncompiled code" that I am not selling/distributing, then you are making a claim on my liberty to distribute my idea.
What I should not be able to do is deprive you from coming up with the same idea (write an identical code) since you doing that isn't depriving me of any scarce resource I have ownership of.
If I were to distribute the code, I agree you should be able to do whatever you want with it since doing so is, again, not depriving me of any resource.

Free markets by nature eliminates monopolies

It's about ownership of means of production(what is surplus and how it stacks) and not about who works how much and where stupid.

Could a free market eliminate Windows's?

haha ment how it is produced. Well fuck it who cares lol

In free market system companies like Microsoft cant exists because you cannot own your products or inventions

Microsoft is not the only operative system provider, nor is anyone as far as I know using force to make it that way.

Elaborate please.

There's no force, per se, but there's a lot of deliberate lock-in. Microsoft consciously tries to make compatibility with programs written for their systems hard.

The problem here is people take what foss is and think they can then apply it everywhere else in the world and create peace and love maaaann. Foss is about knowing what your fucking computer is doing and knowing that it serves you and you alone. You don't get that with proprietary software. Windows is the perfect fucking example at this point. Are you ok with a company calling the shots behind the scenes about what YOUR hardware is doing? What about no one being able to check for you that your system is actually secured if you decide you want to block it off completely from the company? Do you want to be treated like nigger cattle? Just another node in their newtwork there to prop up a business creating a sub par OS that lobbied for it's position? Fuck that I want out and thanks to free software I actually get a choice in the matter that allows me to still use this hardware. There's dozens of other reasons to support foss and while it will probably never be mainstream like windwews and OSx it will always have a support base that don't want to be cucked and fucked for profit and power.

It's more secure than every other option out there. At least they can say they tried to prevent tyranny, can you? The difference also lies in the solution. Where's the solution when a company opted in? We at least know what we're up against and can act accordingly. Using proprietary software means you're fucked because the company leasing you your OS doesn't give a shit if their system is vulnerable to the NSA/CIA/GRU/etc. In fact they prefer it. Enjoy your brave new world, faggot

In free market there is no intellectual property so ergo you cannot own inventions or ideas

Bridgestone cannot exist because they do not own the "tire" idea?
What ideas does Microsoft currently own that nobody else can use? Surely not the Operative System idea the File Manager idea etc.
Not being able to own an idea doesn't mean you cannot produce better/more competitive products based on that idea.

They own shit tons of patents ie. IP. That is communists way of producing goods and thats the reason why they are so succesfull in current system. In free market system microsoft could not make this kind of monopoly because the system itrself prevents it

In the current system it makes sense to patent as much as you can, since the alternative is other companies patenting and charging you for it. Legal costs associated with this are yet another reason the patent system is unpractical, specially for smaller businesses.
Although they do seem to make quite a hefty sum I still wouldn't go as far as saying Microsoft wouldn't exist without the patent system since most of their revenue seems to come from their commercial products for which there are very similar alternatives for. Maybe they could use all that lawyer money on innovation to stay competitive on a free market.

The issue here is you don't know what the fuck your computer is doing regardless of which FOSS programs you use. You want security? Unplug yourself from the internet because your false sense of security is damaging. At this point you just have to accept the risks when plugging yourself in. I want my system to work, and actually have good hardware and software which work perfectly with each other. Go pretend like you're rebelling against the machine by using libre office, Pinko. By all means. It's amazing how many naive people use this board.

I can't believe how many windows fagggots shitpost on this board

Exactly because free market system by definition cannot have monopolies systems work just by using different competing patents which kinda do same thing but differently in variety of different competing platforms. This makes optimal enviroment for computring and communists companies like microsoft cannot exist

debatable

Only going to improve computer security, you're still not out of the woods by doing that and arguably not learning about these systems is the wrong way to go

And using linux is rejecting the risks because...? Seems to me you're just submitting to them, but whatever. No one here cares what you do

Right...

How is rejecting closed source software not rebelling against closed source software? lol seems like you're projecting your hate of communism on foss because you think they're going to gulag you or something. Most posters here aren't even communists aside from the odd Holla Forums faggot. But by all means keep defending those multi billion dollar companies, I'm sure they need your help.

So what's the problem?

Linux is capitalist product and microsoft is monopoly which is communist you fucking idiot

So what's the problem?

Good.

...

Your memes are still shit, fam

Yes, and rms himself is your typical ivory tower socialist academic Couldn't take him seriously after he ripped apart Ron Paul a few years ago on his gnublog.

A monopoly is defined as "An enterprise that is the only seller of a good or service" (econlib.org/library/Enc/Monopoly.html), if there is one sector where monopolies CAN exist in a free market that is technology, if I develop genetically engineered catgirls for domestic ownership, I will have the monopoly on genetically engineered catgirls for domestic ownership until you can come up with a competing technology (or manage to copy mine) since there is nothing preventing me from keeping my trade secrets. What cannot exist in a free market is government-granted monopolies.

Microsoft might be profiting from some government-granted monopolies but in no way relies on those to exist.
90% of their revenue see comes from products there are competing alternatives for, and from that chart it can be derived that they are probably paying other companies for their patents as much as they are getting from theirs, since there is no significant segment for that revenue.
It would be easy to argue on those terms that Microsoft would probably -benefit- from a free market scenario, certainly wouldn't cease to exist.

He also supported Bernie if I remember right.

Nice facebook meme faggot.

I would argue that copyright is communism since it's a state protected monopoly certification.

Copyleft is libetarianism since it gives you the freedom to do what you want, and it lets businesses compete on equal grounds.

When rationalizing about patents, we must also remember that if they didn't exist a lot of new companies and free projects would have a more equal competition with the big ones.

So even though patent-fees among the big ones even out, they also keep out less financially capable companies and free projects with moral objections.

Linux = Binary communism

Witch will also be a monopoly since you won't free the technical methods.
And unfortunately the new catgirls that where engineered cannot be audited and the vaginal secretion that is produced from them castrates white people.
If you have the choice between only monopolistic companies it's still a monopoly.

And ?
What does it have to do with freesoftware or other technical work/tools ?
Don't mix politics with tech you will loose yourself.

Nick cuckchan meme, queer

Not only.
If you rent it, you don't sell it, and the customer doesn't buy it.

Yes and no
Renting software like for example cloud services is called SaaSS ( Service as a Software Substitute)
You rent compiled software and there is nothing you can do about it, you don't have control besides what is authorized.
But still it should use free/libre software for obvious reasons.

But when you buy compiled software for your own hardware, what do you do if there is some problems in it ?
You call microsoft and the pajjet answering you will ask to turn it off an on again ?

If you would have read the EULA of Microsoft you would know that they aren't responsible if the software doesn't work and they have NO OBLIGATION to make it work for you.
The same is also true with free software.

But with free software you aren't limited to one company to the contrary of Microsoft.
You can hire/ask for any developer or any benevolent developers to fix the problem.
The probability of fixing a problem in a free/libre software project is almost always 100% (when hardware manufacturers aren't involved or when they have released the manuals of their hardware or equally good the source of their firmware)

If I said such things I would be indeed doing so.
But I am not.
You are imagining a possibilities over the fear of losing X, nothing is written in advance, you have to be good/competitive if you want to sell shit, this ain't new.

Asking a copy of the source code and denying the customr access to it, is taking my freedom to:
-Protect myself (auditing)
-To make changes (myself or someone else)
-Seek/migrate to another developer.

You are and always will be able to distribute your ideas.

So in that case you are against t the idea of patent.

You seem to contradict yourself.

SaaS is the real fucking problem in both free and closed software. People are so lazy and stupid that everything they once owned and controlled are now rented/subscribed.

You never owned software you paid for, you only rented "licenses"

Linux has had heavy investment from Google, IBM, and Samsung amongst hundreds of big names. It's even had contributions from Microsoft.

Monopolies by nature eliminates free markets.

Of course there is, you can stop your contract and use/make a different software.
Is taking nothing, you signed a contract for a product, if you want a different product sign a contract for a different product, you don't have a moral claim over someone's else property. Buying (or renting) a film doesn't get me a moral claim over it's raw footage if I don't like the ending.
If you want a product that grants you the freedoms you mention, then you buy a product that grants them, that's how the free market works.

You seem to not get my point, back to the film allegory, if I sell you a film you should be able to use your property however you want like using your film studio to make an identical film with a different director and some extra dinosaurs. If I sell you my raw footage then you can use my raw footage and add the dinosaurs with your director and sell your own movies without owning me anything (or having a moral obligation to redistribute that raw footage to all your movie buyers).

I'm against patents/copyright, not trade secrets, since only the former require the initiation of force to create the artificial scarcity (usually by a state).

You have the choice of using the products of neither, or create your own libre catgirl company if you believe your product will be more competitive.
Point being argued itt is copyleft = communism (anti free-market), everything to do with politics, strong copyleft as defined by the GNU (gnu.org/copyleft/)
To require all modified versions of the program to be "free" is making a claim on the use I make of my property, to enforce that would require the initiation of force (usually by a state) making it anti-free market.

404 argument not found.

Ah, see, this is the problem with copyright in general. Not copyleft. You're arguing against copyright, not copyleft, as an idea.

If copyright didn't exist, as Stallman admits, copyleft would not be needed.

You're just a fucking retard who gets off to replies on an anonymous imageboard. Good luck feeling special for making yet another license flamewar thread, too bad you're so incompetent that you shot yourself in the foot.

By definition, a market with copyright and intellectual property cannot be free.

I'm arguing about the initiation of force and property rights violation that both require.

In a free market trade secrets would be protected by a company's ability to keep it that way, and free software would be keep free by the developers willingness to keep it that way and the demand for such product.

Not an argument.

Then it's not protected by anything, because in a free market there's nothing you can do about stopping use of a leaked trade secret. In reality, you keep comparing executables running on someone elses computer to "trade secrets" when it's not at all a comparison.
By definition, if it's running in fucking memory it's not much of a secret, is it dipshit?
Again, copyleft does not require a company to release anything, if they aren't redistributing.
Since you're going to use "copyright" to protect your supposed "trade secrets" and use it as a hammer against anyone who does anything besides clean rooming your executable, we get to use copyleft to tell you to fuck off. How about that?

Again, if copyright didn't exist, copyleft would not have to. You don't seem to understand what communism means, and you certainly don't understand what copyleft entails, and best of all you ramble on about "muh state" yet have to go crawling back to the state to enforce your stake on your super secret control flow data, lel.

Nah, you're just a fucking retard. Called it. Fuck off back to /g/, take the license flamewars with you.

At no point did I advocate for the use of copyright nor any kind of force but your hallucination is noted.
Then you are violating their property rights.
If protection against copyright is what you wish, any permissive license without the aforementioned clause will do.

No, what you're "advocating" is that copyleft is somehow responsible, when it only applies to the framework that enabled copyleft in the first place: copyright. Just say copyright, dipshit. It has nothing to do with copyleft specifically, and if copyright DID NOT EXIST copyleft would not be required.
No, they're violating the original author's terms, under copyright. If they redistribute copylefted software, they're violating that original author's terms.
Nah, but feel free to give me a call when I can take a look at, or reverse engineer and incorporate into my own product, Windows source code, even bits containing those originally licensed permissively. Like the IP stack, for starters.

Permissive licensing does not protect against anything. It's a giveaway to corporations who'll then use copyright as a hammer to fuck you in the ass because you took a look at code running in memory, or leaked, copyrighted code.

And god help you if you ever look at leaked, proprietary code and then go on to have a job in that domain.

I guess your cuck license doesn't really do anything, does it?

>>>/g/

You have a fat aspie stroll into your company's lobby yelling about how your company doesn't actually own the code, made by people, under your direct employment, which have agreed to submit the source code only to your company; because he will never accomplish anything of value in his life and all his ideas are nothing but that, and also complete shit.

When there is only other companies with the same contract it's the same thing.
How much normal users knows of solutions that are a free/libre software solution ?

You either in that case.
Does that mean if the user install a software that I made and the software sucks the data in it, does that means the private data is mine ? or is it still the users ?
When you sell something it's owned by the customer, he has the right to do what he wants with it, even remove bad pieces.

Entirely different subject you are now talking about content not about tools.

The free market doesn't mean to have absolute freedom because if I applied these same rules to the civilian world I could go to your home and do whatever I want like stealing your shit and claiming it mine, just like the free market lets Microsoft or any datamining company does.
This is your vision of free market ?
If you could sell private information or even slaves you would consider it a free one ?

Where is the freedom when people are being forced to use X thing or other X thing because their isn't any other solution ?
Or when the other solution is exactly the same ?
Or when people are forced to use X thing because it depends on another solution that is also a monopoly ?

So a private company creates weapons that could force the hand of the government you'd be ok with that ?
A company creates a genetically modified seed that cannot make more seeds (sterile) since that's a trade secret they can basically made a whole village/state/country dependent on them, wold you be ok with that ?
Selling or limiting knowledge is an aberration.
I understand and agree that you pay for the work, the time passed onto something.
But not knowledge that is the base of our civilizations.

Really ?
So you walk into a company and they say that you have to use this computer and you need to have an email and you have to be able to use them at home.
Do you have a choice ?
You never know what's going to be mandatory or prohibited in the future.

Tell that to all the companies that are forcefully bought by there very big competitors (or other despicable means)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish
The 80s and 90s+ has shown that the actual free market, a market normally made to lets anyone make is company and thrive, isn't working.
The actual market created Enormous monopolies like Verizon and only companies who are the same size or bigger can compete with them.

NO
Putting software under copyleft isn't at all anykind of political shit.
Political means the introduction of political people (who has a political ideology) who's actions are for a group of restricted people who follows the same ideology.
Copyleft on software is making tools available for everyone/anyone if the want so that they can do what they want.
Copyleft is far from any ideology.

What is your property ?
The code that you wrote ?
Yes
The code that you have given for a certain amount of money ?
No
When it's sold, it's sold you have made an exchange, you have giving the rights to that clients to use it has he wish.
If the client is blocked in any way you have not sold him a product you have rented him.
You sell a cupboard the owner can do what ever he wants with it even disassemble it to make something else.
With software if the clients doesn't have the source code he can't do nothing and you are in a position of unjust power over him.

This is how the actual markets works for everything.
If there wasn't people trying to take the freedoms other people the use of force wouldn't be necessary.
But even with this, bad people have figured to use this protection against people because these bad people have legally made illegal to have the freedom to make changes in tools.

In the case of free software SaaSS you rent a services/contract exactly.
Still people can fall into a trap with free software SaaSS, if the contract say that all the data you upload is not yours anymore (facebook for example) then you can't do anything.

If the free software was more attractive to costumers then the companies would release their products as free software to gain more costumers.
The company's goal is maximization of profit, if you want to change their offer change the demand, make the costumers aware of the benefits of free software.
If he agreed to that then sure (see Facebook) if you are spying without consent of course not (see Government).
Universal standards apply to both.
I'm fairly sure that would constitute initiation of force.
You seem to have some basic questions on free market/liberty (government school won't teach much about that for obvious reasons) there is a reading list here:
>>>/liberty/46828

Walking out of that company? We abolished slavery some time ago where I live.
Or if you believe your tools to be superior try to talk them into using them.

Unless you mean at gunpoint I don't see the force there.

Most telecom companies use the government to become monopolies in certain areas, I don't know the specifics about American one (heard a lot about Comcast doing that) but that's not a free market problem. And If they are big without using the government, they probably deserve it.

Not what they want since they are forced to make use of copyright (in the form of copyleft) in the derivative products they made with your code. Most popular free software license at the moment is -not- copyleft (MIT).

In that scenario, my property would be the computer I'd use to compile that code modified or otherwise and sell it as compiled binaries.
In a book scenario it would be paper, pen or whatever I could use to copy that book.

If he wanted that feature he should have purchased a product with that feature.

Your standard is: I use copyleft so they can't use copyright. (I use force so they don't)
My standard is: I don't use copyleft. (I don't use force)
Only one of those solves the problem if applied universally.

This "xy could be communism" is an american thing right?

living in private, having a commons, and picking up your trash is the quintessential white characteristic.

To be honest it was a weird concept that no-one believed in back when they introduced it. No one read the EULA, becaus it was obvious to everyone that if they bought something, then they owned it.

In the EULA they told you that you bought a license to use the software, but really that license was and still is a buyers-deal of one piece of software, which you can re-sell if you want to.

Communism makes sense in a scarcity free society. There is no scarcity of bits vs software/music/movies there is to pirate. Going with your analogy.

Where the communism analogy falls apart is I own my bits. I own the switches and magnetic disk charges and whatnot on my computer. It is MINE. Not the state's. MINE. I can arrange them however I please, including in a manner that replicates another work.

And Microsoft is now a platinum-level Linux Foundation sponsor, so I guess communism won.

This isn't new.
It's like that since almost three years now.

Communism isnt 'you can't own your own hings, the government owns everything!' user. Thats not what they mean by 'private property'.

1/2

It's not a question of being free has ins free of charge or gratis, it's a question of giving back essential freedoms that were taking away.

The goal of anyone in a company is too make profit so that they can sustain themselves.
The maximization of profits began to appear when bad times appeared.
The maximization of profits implies of using methods to extract more money where originally there was already some or to make some savings where the system wasn't efficient enough.
The problem of maximization is that it went out of hand without much regulation and it was and still is used in such degrees of exaggeration for so long that it has become a normality.
Just like the fact that it is normal for most people that they are being spied one.
This is of course not normal.

I have read the TOS/EULA and privacy policy of facebook, I read every one contract that is proposed to me.
Still this shouldn't be something normal we all know that people don't read contracts.
Normally the U.S constitution protects people from that but it seems that a court believes that such contract is prevalent to the constitution.
I believe that is one of the factors that has brought this plague of legalized freedom taking.

But that's legal because the government legalized it.
Such thing shouldn't have been legalized.
An equivalent that would have made another civil war, would be the spying of post mail in the 1890s.

Not at all.
Juridically software and content do have different licenses.
That's why the Creative commons (CC) was created.
So that mediums such has art (sound, images etc..) can also be effectively protected under something else the per default copyright system.
You can of course put your art under GPL but it wouldn't be protected because of the juridical definitions used in the GPL aren't made for art.

It is but has stated before if you have signed the contract you have agreed for it.
It's despicable and outrageous but legal.

Thank you.

I mean you are hired by a company.

(1/2)
2/2
You don't have much contact with basic computer users have you ?
Here's a bit of my experience that is redundant, not always but redundant.
First:
There is a great divide that was always there in computing and that's the professional view an IT has on a computer park and a boss/responsible who has no basic knowledge a bout computers but will tell you how to do your work and with what product you do it.
Second:
There are companies where even if they acknowledge the superiority of the tools and even if they would like to change, they cannot change because they are technically dependent on one software (or more) that is incompatible with the tools that you propose.
These tools are always proprietary.
For example an oracle database.
Do you think oracle would say
This isn't normal.
Of course a company is not happy when a customer leaves for another competitor.
But that's part of the free market you don't chain your customer just because you don't want him to leave.
But Since oracle detains the source of the software and that no one has ever legally made them open the format of the database then no one can change or can but with sacrificing all the previous data.
Which is something impossible for a lot of companies.

It's an indirect one, but still they use the legal system to forcefully turn it against basic freedoms.

For telecom's it's a complex situation for the jurisdictional t who belongs to who with the government.
But still they abuse of there dominant situation and can treat their customers like shit because they don't have any alternatives or good legal protection. (because there is only Verizon and Comcast)

Again copyleft is all about freedom.
Where is the freedom if you can legally remove the freedom of others ?

MIT is not a free/libre software license it's an opensource one that is compatible with the free/libre (copyleft) license.
It's compatible because it's extremely permissive.
The popularity of MIT is not in the community but it's a lot of people who don't understand the reasons of licenses or companies who are going to use the software in bad ways.
A good example of that is google with android.
Even tho it uses the linux kernel the people who use it are infected with a lot of malware and spyware.
This happens because google has initially refused to let people to make modifications in android thanks to permissive licensing, until of course someone found how to break the security.

Easier to said than done .
Technical blocking because of competitors or other proprietary companies etc... already explained in the precedent paragraphs.

Fuck off Holla Forums