Misunderstanding GPL's terms and conditions as restrictions (and an apology)

[Lyvim Xaphir]

On Sun, 2008-08-03 at 12:54 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> 

> > Having source available is not enough for Software to be Free.  It
> > might come as a surprise to some, but it's not even enough for it to
> > be Open Source.
> 
> Perhaps you don't even realize that the word 'free' had a meaning before 
> the FSF distorted it to mean restricted.  It still has this meaning for 
> everyone who does not drink this cult kool-aid.
> 
> >> Note that it was Stallman himself leading the charge against this
> >> free distribution,
> > 
> > /me stares at 'free distribution', then at the sentence containing
> > 'restricted distribution' above, and pauses, wondering if it makes
> > sense to even try to understand this stance, compared with the stance
> > directed at the GPL.
> 
> You have to understand 'free' in the original sense of not adding 
> unnecessary restrictions for it to make sense.  Perhaps you are 
> brainwashed to the point that you aren't capable of understanding it.
> 
> >> Later the license on the gmp library was changed to lgpl.
> > 
> > AFAIK the reasoning is that, once there is a functionally-equivalent
> > library under a more permissive license, the requirements of the GPL
> > that are relaxed by the LGPL no longer work as an incentive for more
> > software to be released in terms that both respect and defend users'
> > freedoms, because anyone who'd rather not respect or defend them would
> > just use the equivalent library.
> 
> It didn't, and doesn't work as such an incentive anyway.  It just 
> prevents the work from being used at all in many situations and forces a 
> duplication of effort to create and maintain the usable alternative. 
> And even in the situations where it can be used, why not take the moral 
> high ground and let the people contributing their own portions choose 
> their own license terms instead of taking away that choice from them?

Linus Torvalds advocates developers being able to choose their own
licensing.  The GPL zealots, however, would restrict the freedom to do
so by throwing around terms like "binary blobs" (which, eh, what exactly
is a kernel anyway?).  So yeah, you've nailed it quite completely; the
GPL is a license of slavery; it has been the most fantastically
propaganda-promoted "Big Lie" since before Goebbels quit working for the
Third Reich.

Even worse, the zealots that adopt it choose it as a religion, a
replacement for a real God, and promote it with everything but a black
robe and an inverted cross.  That's why they talk so good about software
that performs like dog crap, like Pulseaudio or alsa and a billion other
substandard pieces that have better performing parts, like nvidia or ati
drivers for instance.

The religious aspect explains also why you can't reason with these
zealots.  Note that the nvidia drivers are always crap because the
company chose a different license (even tho the performance of the
hardware on native drivers blows away anything else they try to shove
down your throat...same thing for ati btw to a lesser degree)


> 
> >  So we might as well use the LGPL
> > which, should someone want to further improve the library or the
> > software that uses it, ensures one or the other can be offered under
> > the GPL.
> > 
> >> http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/ReplacingGMPNotes#ReasonsforReplacingGMPastheBignumlibrary
> > 
> > "Interesting" arguments there.  #1. is the result of misreading LGPL
> > v2.1, missing its section 6.  I know because at some point I'd misread
> > it that way myself, and asked authoritative sources about it :-)
> 
> The exceptions to the exceptions are all pretty confusing.  My reading 
> says you can't distribute static-linked binaries for systems that don't 
> include compilers and all the other needed libraries as part of the 
> stock OS.  That excludes the vast majority of target users.

A court case would decide it.  You'd better hope that the public pushes
things in the direction of allowing other licensing around the kernel,
or these fascist zealots will end up killing linux.

That's why I call them the Church of the New Flagellants.  The
Flagellants of old used to beat and batter Jews bloody out of hate in
the streets, after having turned the chains on their own backs,
ironically enough.  These New Flagellants are similar, except they beat
anybody out of hate who doesn't follow their GPL religion, whilst
simultaneously beating their own selves with crappier software (for the
cause).  The anology goes even deeper as they carry the seeds of their
own destruction.

> 
> > #2. and #3. amount to "we'd rather rewrite from scratch than adapt GMP
> > [under its current license] so that it does what we want", which
> > probably only makes sense under the influence of mistake #1.  Or a
> > fair aomunt of alcohol :-)
> 
> No, it means they want something they are permitted to distribute to 
> users without restrictions whether it happens to suit RMS's whims or not.


Bingo.



> 
> -- 
>    Les Mikesell
>     lesmikesell at gmail.com


LX