Marco Peereboom wrote:
On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 12:11:46AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not out to convince anyone that anyone has any more rights than anyone
else. What I *was* doing was bringing that particular portion of the
conversation back to more than just baseless bashing of a particular
license.
It isn't baseless you are simply blind to it because you are convinced
that the GPL is the best thing evah!
What have you been smoking and can a brotha get a hit?
I am not a particularly large fan of the GPL. It's not my first choice
of license but I can see where it has its uses. It also has its fair
share of issues and those issues are fair reasons for attack. Bash it
for its legitimate flaws, though, and not by making sensationalist
claims that aren't true.
The GPL essentially strips the author of his/her rights. So here you
are slaving away writing some code that you give away and then on top of
that you have to forfeit your labor in favor of users. I hate to tell
you this but that is the wrong way around.
I'm not making any statements to the contrary. If you choose to give
your code away then that's your own mistake. Why would you hate to have
to tell me that?
That is not how I see this. One side came to slander (not the first
time either) and the other side kept correcting the slanderer. There
might have been some strong words going back and forth but only one side
was wrong. Lets call it self-defense.
Yes, RMS slandered. Tell him he's wrong, that the comment was incorrect
and that his argument is bollocks. Rally the troops for self-defense.
That's the right thing to do.
Attack the GPL for its flaws. That's the right thing to do.
I'm not denouncing either of these acts. What I *am* denouncing are some
of the sensationalist claims that were incorrect.
They're not my teachings or teachings to which I particularly subscribe. I
would maintain that most of the "more popular" licenses have their pros -
ultimately it depends on who or what you want to protect.
Popular does not mean good. VHS anyone?
That's why I intentionally said "more popular". Lots of things are
"popular" but complete rubbish. Somewhere along the line each of the
"more popular" licenses scratched an itch for some developer or
organization and others felt that *something* about the license was
useful to them - the license "had it's pros".
Let me quote my man Franklin:
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Where the GPL is temporary safety in trade of Essential Liberty.
That's quite a broad stretch to make and I both agree and disagree. I
think it boils down to what it is you're trying to protect.
Nice use of Ben.
Don't paint me with the RMS/GNU brush because I refused to stand by and
watch *blatantly* false accusations be made. There is a big difference
between correcting those accusations and *supporting* the recipient of the
accusations.
Then don't stand by them by not replying to this. By adding to this
thread you picked a side like it or not.
Let's use your own quotation from Franklin. By not replying I am
foregoing my own Liberty in exchange for a bit of temporary safety in
not being painted with that brush.
I choose, instead, to exercise the ability to reply and say that this is
not an "us or them" situation and that I refuse to allow myself to be
painted that colour. I've chosen no side. If that means I get cut down
by yours because you want to make it a "with us or against us" argument,
fine. If that means I get cut down by RMS/GNU/FSF because they want to
make it a "with us or against us" argument, fine. *I don't care*. I
choose to remain a neutral third party that can see the benefits (and
detriments) of the different licenses.
You can't lump someone as your enemy simply because they aren't full of
fervour for your cause.
kmw
--
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes
