Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #8427 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-12-29 09:30 -0800 |
| Last post | 2012-01-03 16:09 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 101 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
GPL and commercial Forths Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2011-12-29 09:30 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-29 10:34 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2011-12-29 10:50 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-29 12:11 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-12-29 17:58 -0500
Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-29 16:26 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-12-30 13:40 -0500
Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-30 15:21 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-12-31 05:51 -0500
Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-31 10:48 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-12-30 04:35 -0600
Re: GPL and commercial Forths "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-12-30 13:41 -0500
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-30 22:12 +0100
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2011-12-30 13:58 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-12-30 17:03 -0600
Re: GPL and commercial Forths "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-12-31 21:10 -0500
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-01 05:21 -0600
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201201.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-01-02 00:45 +0100
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-01 17:59 -0600
Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-01 16:23 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-01-02 01:27 +0100
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-01 18:35 -0600
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-01-02 10:47 +0000
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201201.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-01-01 19:03 +0100
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-01-01 21:19 +0100
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-01 17:35 -0600
Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-01 16:36 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-01-02 14:18 +0100
Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-05 05:14 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-01-05 19:16 +0100
Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-05 14:09 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2012-01-01 17:37 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-30 11:15 +0000
Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-30 09:56 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths cas_news@strotmann.de (Carsten Strotmann (Usenet)) - 2011-12-29 19:44 +0100
Re: GPL and commercial Forths anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-12-30 12:51 +0000
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2011-12-30 07:55 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-30 10:48 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-12-31 13:49 +0000
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-01-03 13:21 +0000
Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-03 05:53 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-01-03 16:41 +0000
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2011-12-29 11:04 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-12-30 12:44 +0000
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-01-01 10:12 +0000
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-01-01 15:34 +0100
Re: GPL and commercial Forths "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-01-01 08:50 -1000
Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-01 13:13 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-01-02 10:46 +0000
Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-02 14:17 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-01-03 12:39 +0000
Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-03 05:43 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-01-03 11:53 +0000
Re: GPL and commercial Forths cas_news@strotmann.de (Carsten Strotmann (Usenet)) - 2012-01-03 13:23 +0100
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-01-03 13:06 +0000
Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-03 06:14 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-01-03 15:53 +0000
Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-03 09:19 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-03 09:46 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-03 15:12 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-01-04 03:43 +0000
Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-03 22:53 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-01-06 07:30 +0000
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-01-06 14:19 +0100
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-01-06 16:06 +0000
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-06 10:26 -0600
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-01-06 22:16 +0100
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-01-08 07:18 +0000
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-08 07:16 -0600
Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-06 07:33 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-06 08:12 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-01-08 09:02 +0000
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-08 07:23 -0600
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-01-08 14:07 +0000
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-08 08:32 -0600
Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-08 08:36 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-08 07:46 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-08 08:23 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-01-08 17:07 +0000
Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-08 10:48 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-08 11:10 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-01-09 11:01 +0000
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2012-01-10 17:26 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-01-11 03:00 +0000
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-01-11 12:10 +0000
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-01-11 13:21 +0000
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-11 05:57 -0600
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-01-11 16:17 +0100
Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-11 09:21 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-01-11 16:35 +0000
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-11 11:01 -0600
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-01-11 18:55 +0100
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2012-01-13 07:56 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-13 08:42 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-01-13 19:20 +0100
Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-13 14:01 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-01-14 03:37 +0000
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-01-14 11:57 +0000
Re: GPL and commercial Forths BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-11 09:32 -0800
Re: GPL and commercial Forths Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-01-09 01:58 +0000
Re: GPL and commercial Forths anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-03 16:09 +0000
Page 1 of 6 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-29 09:30 -0800 |
| Subject | GPL and commercial Forths |
| Message-ID | <1e521ca6-fef7-4ad7-98d1-9dda4a2a0e4e@dp8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> |
Are GPL applications written for commercial (or other non-GPL) Forths compatible with GPL? According to http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs it seems they are not. What constitutes a library in Forth? The CORE wordset? Non-ANS extensions? If I use "dot", that is statically linked to #, which is statically linked to UM/MOD, HOLD, etc. The "library" is an intrinsic part of the Forth implementation. You can't just roll your own GPL Forth library. You can, but it's like writing a whole new Forth. -Brad
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-29 10:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <de9fe0c7-652c-4eb8-954b-5441f76d12da@v13g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8427 |
On Dec 29, 12:30 pm, Brad <hwfw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Are GPL applications written for commercial (or other non-GPL) > Forth compatible with GPL? According to > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs > it seems they are not. What does the word "compatible with" mean? If the GPL application was *written for* a commercial Forth, it ought to include the conveyance permission described at that site. Indeed, it seems like a generic conveyance exception for the Forth interpreter used to compile the application could be drawn up for Forth source that someone wanted to release under the GPL but wanted to allow it to be used in applications compiled on commercial implementations. The issue would rather arise when using part of a GPL application *not* "written for" a commercial Forth. As always under copyright, if the copyright holder has not granted permission in advance for the use that you wish, then permission needs to be sought. The original author can, of course, release the source under as many different licenses as they wish to, subject to limitations imposed by work that *they* made use of. > What constitutes a library in Forth? The CORE wordset? Non-ANS > extensions? If I use "dot", that is statically linked to #, > which is statically linked to UM/MOD, HOLD, etc. The "library" is > an intrinsic part of the Forth implementation. You can't just roll > your own GPL Forth library. You can, but it's like writing a whole > new Forth. For the original author who wishes to release a portable open source Forth application, the simple answer is just to give permission to compile it on a commercial system and distribute the result subject to distributing the application source blah blah blah.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-29 10:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <10f439f3-3464-431c-b348-948348bca3bf@u6g2000vbc.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8428 |
On Dec 29, 11:34 am, BruceMcF <agil...@netscape.net> wrote: > For the original author who wishes to release a portable open source > Forth application, the simple answer is just to give permission to > compile it on a commercial system and distribute the result subject to > distributing the application source blah blah blah. Suppose the only Forth for a particular CPU is a commercial one, and it includes an API (which you need to use) for a particular system. Maybe the vendor makes it available for cheap or free, but it's still proprietary. How does this impact the four freedoms of GPL? GPL is supposed to provide a way to enforce them so that free software stays free. If use of non-GPL tools removes GPL's teeth then it's the wrong form of copyleft. -Brad
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-29 12:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <77c781e7-6689-4b5b-a9e9-9dcc152344b1@v24g2000yqk.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8430 |
On Dec 29, 1:50 pm, Brad <hwfw...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 29, 11:34 am, BruceMcF <agil...@netscape.net> wrote: >> For the original author who wishes to release a portable open source >> Forth application, the simple answer is just to give permission to >> compile it on a commercial system and distribute the result >> subject to distributing the application source blah blah blah. > Suppose the only Forth for a particular CPU is a commercial one, and > it includes an API (which you need to use) for a particular system. > Maybe the vendor makes it available for cheap or free, but it's still > proprietary. > How does this impact the four freedoms of GPL? GPL is supposed to > provide a way to enforce them so that free software stays free. And so it does. They may be constrained *by present circumstance* to a single proprietary implementation, but they are not legally bound to that implementation, so they are not forbidden from taking advantage if new opportunities open up. The more of Forth applications targeting that CPU are under the GPL, the more of the ecosystem supporting the use of the proprietary implementation can be adopted by an open source Forth that is developed to target that CPU. Indeed, the larger the share of Forth application sources targeting that CPU that is under the GPL, the greater the incentive to target that CPU with an open-source Forth implementation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-29 17:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <jdir69$9fp$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #8430 |
"Brad" <hwfwguy@gmail.com> wrote in message news:10f439f3-3464-431c-b348-948348bca3bf@u6g2000vbc.googlegroups.com... > > GPL is supposed to provide a way to enforce [freedoms] so that free > software stays free. > Public Domain (no copyright), and minimal term MIT and BSD licenses ensure that "free software stays free" ... Why do we need the extra terms and more restrictive terms of the GPL? Even if the GPL initiated the FOSS movement, it's not FOSS anymore by comparison. > If use of non-GPL tools removes GPL's teeth then it's the > wrong form of copyleft. Why would "free software" have any "teeth" at all? Software with "teeth" is associated with copyrighted and commercial software which is not free in the least. I.e., the GPL has a socialist mindset, i.e., the works of others should be works of all. Socialism is a failure. You've bought into that ideology. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-29 16:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9f0bd7a1-e7f4-40bc-91fe-c468eb45866c@f33g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8447 |
On Dec 29, 5:58 pm, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@noavailemail.cmm> wrote: > Public Domain (no copyright), and minimal term MIT and BSD licenses > ensure that "free software stays free" ... Public Domain certainly did not prove to work out that way in the 80's and 90's. Whether MIT and BSD do is subject to lots of argument. As far as "Socialism failed", as a pure system so has Capitalism ... indeed, repeatedly. Pure ideologies are not as robust as pragmatic mixed systems, since any pure ideology has an Achilles Heel.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-30 13:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <jdl0er$s49$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #8451 |
"BruceMcF" <agila61@netscape.net> wrote in message news:9f0bd7a1-e7f4-40bc-91fe-c468eb45866c@f33g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 29, 5:58 pm, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@noavailemail.cmm> > wrote: > > > Public Domain (no copyright), and minimal term MIT and BSD > > licenses ensure that "free software stays free" ... > > Public Domain certainly did not prove to work out that way in > the 80's and 90's. I don't recall much Public Domain in the 80's and 90's. I recall a bunch of pre-FOSS ideology licenses: share-ware, postcard-ware, no military-use-ware, no government-use-ware, register-with-the-author-ware, etc. Of course, one "negative" of FOSS, at least from the perspective of all the no goverment or no military use licenses, is that FOSS allows, even encourages, government and military use. Isn't that the same as the essentially the same mentality as the "no corporate use" or "no for profit use" ideologies implicitly espoused by most pro-GPL users? Why did they accept military and government use? > As far as "Socialism failed", as a pure system so has Capitalism ... > indeed, repeatedly. Which is "winning"? Even China and India are, albeit abysmally slow, shifting ... Which is more preferred by the majority of those that must live within the economic ideology? Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-30 15:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <16bae103-3f1d-4a03-ac52-6070e8e43033@v13g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8487 |
On Dec 30, 1:40 pm, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@noavailemail.cmm> wrote: > "BruceMcF" <agil...@netscape.net> wrote ... >> On Dec 29, 5:58 pm, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@noavailemail.cmm> >> wrote: >>> Public Domain (no copyright), and minimal term MIT and BSD >>> licenses ensure that "free software stays free" ... >> Public Domain certainly did not prove to work out that way in >> the 80's and 90's. > I don't recall much Public Domain in the 80's and 90's. Yes, that's what I said. Public Domain did not ensure that "free software stays free" in the 80's and 90's. It stopped being a cooperative endeavor, and become something to be mined without contributing back to.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-31 05:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <jdmpbb$juu$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #8505 |
"BruceMcF" <agila61@netscape.net> wrote in message news:16bae103-3f1d-4a03-ac52-6070e8e43033@v13g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > Yes, that's what I said. Public Domain did not ensure that > "free software stays free" in the 80's and 90's. It predates the entire concept of FOSS. I'd think if those guys were aware of such a concept, we wouldn't have see such widespread variety in their licenses. Back then, people thought they could make money on simple programs. So, you still would've seen most software with a commercial license. RP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-31 10:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <512b49c0-0f00-4114-994c-72f5eb1d35ed@f1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8511 |
On Dec 31, 5:51 am, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@noavailemail.cmm> wrote: > "BruceMcF" <agil...@netscape.net> wrote in message > > news:16bae103-3f1d-4a03-ac52-6070e8e43033@v13g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... >> Yes, that's what I said. Public Domain did not ensure that >> "free software stays free" in the 80's and 90's. > It predates the entire concept of FOSS. > I'd think if those guys were aware of such a concept, we wouldn't > have see such widespread variety in their licenses. They were of course aware of the concept of public domain, since early arguments in favor of open source software praised the benefits of public domain software and lamented the way that the wave of commercialization had placed so much further development on the back of public domain software behind a paywall, interfering with further development. The notion that they would have just used Public Domain if they had been aware of the concept appears to be simple ignorance of the history. > Back then, people thought they could make money on simple programs. If "back then" means by the 1980's, there *were* people making money on simple programs. And also people making money on more complex public domain programs developed in the 60's and 70's, with a light gloss of their own added on top. > So, you still would've seen most software with a commercial license. The FOSS movement started as an effort to allow an open software alternative to that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-30 04:35 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <x-ednSMDBdhtDmDTnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #8447 |
Rod Pemberton <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> wrote: > "Brad" <hwfwguy@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:10f439f3-3464-431c-b348-948348bca3bf@u6g2000vbc.googlegroups.com... >> >> GPL is supposed to provide a way to enforce [freedoms] so that free >> software stays free. > > Public Domain (no copyright), and minimal term MIT and BSD licenses > ensure that "free software stays free" ... Why do we need the extra > terms and more restrictive terms of the GPL? Because without the GPL, there is nothing to stop somone from taking free software, extending it, and making it proprietary. With the GPL, everyone has the right to the extended version as well as the original. So, the GPL is effectively *less* restrictive than the MIT and BSD licenses: with the GPL, everyone has the right to both versions. The GPL provides the recipients of the software more freedom, but they have to respect everyone else's freedom too. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-30 13:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <jdl0h8$sdc$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #8466 |
"Andrew Haley" <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote in message news:x-ednSMDBdhtDmDTnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@supernews.com... > Rod Pemberton <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> wrote: > > "Brad" <hwfwguy@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:10f439f3-3464-431c-b348-948348bca3bf@u6g2000vbc.googlegroups.com... > >> > >> GPL is supposed to provide a way to enforce [freedoms] so that free > >> software stays free. > > > > Public Domain (no copyright), and minimal term MIT and BSD licenses > > ensure that "free software stays free" ... Why do we need the extra > > terms and more restrictive terms of the GPL? > > Because without the GPL, there is nothing to stop somone from > taking free software, extending it, and making it proprietary. That's freedom too ... They and everyone else are free to use it for private, public, commercial, non-commercial, government, academic, research, military, or whatever ... How is that not free? The problem here seems to be the "us vs. them" mentally. I.e., "'They' are 'stealing' our 'free' software by using it. 'They' must 'pay' us for their use with their code changes." Here, think about this: If a company can make some changes to a piece of software that started out as FOSS, and that piece of software allows them to hire and employ a thousand programmers or a thousand stock brokers or a thousand engineers for at least a decade. Isn't that a huge benefit to society economically, especially a capitalist society? Yes, it is. Now, what if they change that software and are forced by the license to release that code which eliminates their ability to profit from it? That's very bad for society ... The reality is we and most of the rest of the world are capitalist societies or rapidly progressing towards them. > So, the GPL is effectively *less* restrictive than the MIT > and BSD licenses: with the GPL, everyone has the right to both > versions. Constraints are only *less* restrictive from a socialist perspective ... I.e., *everyone* owns the rights to *everything* produced by others. Don't you live in a capitalist society? Most of the world does or will. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-30 22:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <jdl9gc$n1$1@online.de> |
| In reply to | #8488 |
Rod Pemberton wrote: >> Because without the GPL, there is nothing to stop somone from >> taking free software, extending it, and making it proprietary. > > That's freedom too ... Well, is it freedom when people are allowed to enslave other people? Is it freedom to take away rights from other people? > Here, think about this: > > If a company can make some changes to a piece of software that started > out as FOSS, and that piece of software allows them to hire and employ > a thousand programmers or a thousand stock brokers or a thousand > engineers for at least a decade. Well, why on earth do you need to make that software proprietary to do so? This is a non-conclusive argument. You could argue that slavery is necessary, because then a company can enslave a thousand stock brokers or whatever, and that would be a great benefit to society (no big bonus needed for them), and of course the enslaved stock brokers should realize that their personal freedom is much less important than the greater good. Oops, I've heard these arguments before. I can assure you, they came from communist or fashist leaders. Companies have taken FOSS software, and make profit, even though it stays FOSS. Some of them use the in-house clause (which only works, because employees are slaves), so they don't have to re-share. > Constraints are only *less* restrictive from a socialist perspective > ... I.e., *everyone* owns the rights to *everything* produced by > others. You really don't understand. If I own a tangible thing, let's say my bike, it is by nature of the thing an exclusive ownership - there is only one bike, and only one person can ride it at a time. If I give it to you, I don't have it any longer. The economic term for this is "rivalrous good". This is not true for software. If I give you Gforth, I still have Gforth myself. We both have it. We both can modify it, and redistribute it. Everybody on earth can have it at the same time, without conflict. The economic term for this is "non-rivalrous good". We need artificial limitations like copyrights or patents, which forbit other people to do things with their own property, to make software, art, music, movies, etc. to appear to be rivalrous goods, which they aren't. > Don't you live in a capitalist society? Most of the world does or > will. No, actually, I don't want to live in a truely capitalistic society. This is a dogmatic society where money (and big bosses) is king, and people are enslaved by companies. I really don't understand why corporatism (that's what it really is) is such a good idea. I know pretty well why communism isn't a good idea, since I've enough connections to China, and that was a huge experiment field for communist ideas. The main conclusion there is that people like to work on their own premises, and not on collectivized ones. Now, the collective, that was a village, i.e. some hundred people who knew each others well and were often related with each others, so it really shouldn't be that hard to make this work - but it didn't. So, what is a corporation for the employees? A collective. You don't own the results of your work, they are owned by the company. People do not naturally like to work in such an environment. Companies often behave in many ways like (real) communist collectives, they have dictatorical hierarchies, they try to enforce rules through punishment, they make three- or five-years plans (which never work out), etc. There is a natural necessity for that, that's called the "economy of scale". Many things can't be done by individuals. Or loosely coupled teams. However, we know, software can be done that way. That's why open source can produce big software (which needs a larger team to be successful), because even though every player works on his own, they have to make their work available to others. So if you don't recall much free software in the pre-GPL days, it's because the GPL wasn't there, and most public domain software then was done by individuals or very small teams, who often quickly abandoned their work. The volksForth team had abandoned their work to me, and I first made it commercial (since I was young, and didn't understand), but soon I released most of it (modified) again under GPL, that's what's now Gforth. The exception were university works, which is where we have the BSDL/MITL from. The contributors in fact also did quickly abandon their work, because they were students, but the project as a hole lived on. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-30 13:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f3cee956-11cf-42a6-a9c1-162574fe7b4f@y7g2000vbe.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8488 |
On Dec 30, 11:41 am, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@noavailemail.cmm> wrote: > > Because without the GPL, there is nothing to stop somone from > > taking free software, extending it, and making it proprietary. > > That's freedom too ... They and everyone else are free to use it for > private, public, commercial, non-commercial, government, academic, research, > military, or whatever ... How is that not free? The problem here seems to > be the "us vs. them" mentally. I.e., "'They' are 'stealing' our 'free' > software by using it. 'They' must 'pay' us for their use with their code > changes." No, I think they are pretty clear that 'free' means 'unencumbered'. You need new methods to profit from it, but the focus is on keeping software unencumbered as it matures. Presumably so it can do the greatest good. I used to view RMS's GPL as an effort to cram some weird socialism down the throat of industry, or some attempt to "stick it to the man", but it's more than that. It's about giving freedom to a person's intellectual offspring. Granted, they are some ugly babies.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-30 17:03 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <av6dnWD2FqrU3mPTnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #8488 |
Rod Pemberton <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> wrote:
> "Andrew Haley" <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote in message
> news:x-ednSMDBdhtDmDTnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@supernews.com...
>> Rod Pemberton <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> wrote:
>> > "Brad" <hwfwguy@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:10f439f3-3464-431c-b348-948348bca3bf@u6g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
>> >>
>> >> GPL is supposed to provide a way to enforce [freedoms] so that free
>> >> software stays free.
>> >
>> > Public Domain (no copyright), and minimal term MIT and BSD licenses
>> > ensure that "free software stays free" ... Why do we need the extra
>> > terms and more restrictive terms of the GPL?
>>
>> Because without the GPL, there is nothing to stop somone from
>> taking free software, extending it, and making it proprietary.
>
> That's freedom too ...
Yes, but it's a freedom that impinges on the freedom of their users.
> They and everyone else are free to use it for private, public,
> commercial, non-commercial, government, academic, research,
> military, or whatever ... How is that not free? The problem here
> seems to be the "us vs. them" mentally. I.e., "'They' are
> 'stealing' our 'free' software by using it. 'They' must 'pay' us
> for their use with their code changes."
If they want to redistribute it, yes, they must.
The goal is to maximize the amount of software that respects the four
freedoms, which are:
The freedom to run the program, 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.
Allowing people to take free software and distribute it in such a way
that does not respect these freedoms, is not in accordance with these
goals.
> Here, think about this:
>
> If a company can make some changes to a piece of software that
> started out as FOSS, and that piece of software allows them to hire
> and employ a thousand programmers or a thousand stock brokers or a
> thousand engineers for at least a decade. Isn't that a huge benefit
> to society economically, especially a capitalist society? Yes, it
> is. Now, what if they change that software and are forced by the
> license to release that code which eliminates their ability to
> profit from it?
This scenario sounds very unlikely. Why would they not be able to
hire and employ programmers in a way that repects freedom? But even
if your scenario were true, it wouldn't matter. This is an ethical
question: a matter of right and wrong. You must respect the freedom
that allowed you access to the code; you must allow everyone else the
same freedoms that you were given.
It's a deal freely entered into, and no-one is forcing anyone to use
free software.
>> So, the GPL is effectively *less* restrictive than the MIT
>> and BSD licenses: with the GPL, everyone has the right to both
>> versions.
>
> Constraints are only *less* restrictive from a socialist perspective
> ... I.e., *everyone* owns the rights to *everything* produced by
> others.
That is nonsense. Everyone has the right to use free software, for
any purpose. If you don't want to use it, don't use it.
> Don't you live in a capitalist society? Most of the world does or
> will.
I live in a mixed economy. Most people do.
Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-31 21:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <jdof6f$bme$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #8503 |
"Andrew Haley" <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote in message news:av6dnWD2FqrU3mPTnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@supernews.com... > Rod Pemberton <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> wrote: > > "Andrew Haley" <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote in message > > news:x-ednSMDBdhtDmDTnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@supernews.com... > >> Rod Pemberton <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> wrote: > >> > "Brad" <hwfwguy@gmail.com> wrote in message > >> > news:10f439f3-3464-431c-b348-948348bca3bf@u6g2000vbc.googlegroups.com... > >> >> > >> >> GPL is supposed to provide a way to enforce [freedoms] so that free > >> >> software stays free. > >> > > >> > Public Domain (no copyright), and minimal term MIT and BSD licenses > >> > ensure that "free software stays free" ... Why do we need the extra > >> > terms and more restrictive terms of the GPL? > >> > >> Because without the GPL, there is nothing to stop somone from > >> taking free software, extending it, and making it proprietary. > > > > That's freedom too ... > > Yes, but it's a freedom that impinges on the freedom of their users. > So? Without individual rights, the rights of the majority would suppress you (or enslave you) for the better good or because they can ... Your individual rights are what make you free. Those rights impinge upon the rights of others. I.e., if you own property, they have no right to walk upon it or enter into it. You've impinged upon their freedom of movement. > The goal is to maximize the amount of software that respects the four > freedoms, which are: > > The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). > Don't BSD and MIT and Public Domain do that? Doesn't the GPL terms restrict "for any purpose"? > 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. > Don't BSD and MIT and Public Domain do that too? I guess there could be some PD binaries ... I'm not sure who exactly you're thinking of whom would release a BSD or MIT binary without source. > The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor > (freedom 2). > Don't BSD and MIT and Public Domain do that? Didn't you mean "source copies" to be clear of "binary copies" ...? > 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. > Don't BSD and MIT and Public Domain do that too? Well? Why do you need GPL? It appears to me BSD, MIT, and PD do all that. > Allowing people to take free software and distribute it in such a way > that does not respect these freedoms, is not in accordance with these > goals. You phrase "does not respect these freedoms" violates freedom 0, specifically the "for any purpose" clause ... You can't have both. "For any purpose" would include for-profit, private, military, etc. Why does FOSS have "goals"? That impinges upon the freedom of the end-user of the software. > Why would they not be able to > hire and employ programmers in a way that repects freedom? Competition. Take a brokerage. It runs software to make money. If all their competitors had their software, they couldn't make any money. Numerous other businesses make their money from internal software: airlines, package shipping, manufacturing, etc. The key to most businesses is not customer support or a quality product but the software that runs their operations. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-01 05:21 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <GsydnbeAYZwD3J3SnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #8536 |
Rod Pemberton <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> wrote: > "Andrew Haley" <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote in message > news:av6dnWD2FqrU3mPTnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@supernews.com... >> Rod Pemberton <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> wrote: >> > "Andrew Haley" <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote in message >> > news:x-ednSMDBdhtDmDTnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@supernews.com... >> >> Rod Pemberton <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> wrote: >> >> > "Brad" <hwfwguy@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> > > news:10f439f3-3464-431c-b348-948348bca3bf@u6g2000vbc.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> GPL is supposed to provide a way to enforce [freedoms] so that free >> >> >> software stays free. >> >> > >> >> > Public Domain (no copyright), and minimal term MIT and BSD licenses >> >> > ensure that "free software stays free" ... Why do we need the extra >> >> > terms and more restrictive terms of the GPL? >> >> >> >> Because without the GPL, there is nothing to stop somone from >> >> taking free software, extending it, and making it proprietary. >> > >> > That's freedom too ... >> >> Yes, but it's a freedom that impinges on the freedom of their users. > > So? Because that's the whole point of the GPL. > Without individual rights, the rights of the majority would suppress > you (or enslave you) for the better good or because they can ... > Your individual rights are what make you free. Those rights impinge > upon the rights of others. I.e., if you own property, they have no > right to walk upon it or enter into it. You've impinged upon their > freedom of movement. Indeed, and individual rights include the right to develop and use free software and insist that it's only used in programs that are also free software. As an individual developer, you have to right to decide how your software is used. >> The goal is to maximize the amount of software that respects the four >> freedoms, which are: >> >> The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). > > Don't BSD and MIT and Public Domain do that? Doesn't the GPL terms restrict > "for any purpose"? No, there are no restrictions on what GPL software may be used for. >> 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. > > Don't BSD and MIT and Public Domain do that too? I guess there > could be some PD binaries ... I'm not sure who exactly you're > thinking of whom would release a BSD or MIT binary without source. I don't think that either of these licences provides access to source code, but I don't have an encyclopaedic knowledge of free software licences. >> The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor >> (freedom 2). > > Don't BSD and MIT and Public Domain do that? Didn't you mean "source > copies" to be clear of "binary copies" ...? BSD and MIT are free software licences. They have problems, and in many areas aren't as good as the GPL, but it's still free software. >> 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. > > Don't BSD and MIT and Public Domain do that too? As above, I don't think that either provide access to the source. > Well? Why do you need GPL? It appears to me BSD, MIT, and PD do > all that. Because BSD and MIT and Public Domain don't do this. It's quite possible to ship such code in a way that doesn't respect those freedoms. The GPL makes sure that can't happen. >> Allowing people to take free software and distribute it in such a way >> that does not respect these freedoms, is not in accordance with these >> goals. > > You phrase "does not respect these freedoms" violates freedom 0, > specifically the "for any purpose" clause ... You can't have both. "For > any purpose" would include for-profit, private, military, etc. Yes, absolutely. All of this is allowed. > Why does FOSS have "goals"? Of course free software (or rather, the free software movement) has goals. Why not? > That impinges upon the freedom of the end-user of the software. This makes no sense. >> Why would they not be able to hire and employ programmers in a way >> that respects freedom? > > Competition. Take a brokerage. It runs software to make money. If all > their competitors had their software, they couldn't make any money. So, they develop and use the software in house. There's no rule against that. They don't have to release their software in any form. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201201.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-02 00:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <617fd7b6f7abce0dad3fe772637ef79c@msgid.frell.theremailer.net> |
| In reply to | #8547 |
Remember folks, Andy is a GPL stooge because he gets paid by Red Hat to write GPL software. If he had to get an honest job and absorb the R&D costs himself I doubt he'd be singing the same twisted tune. But he might, GPL is a virus and the only cure is reality they can't face.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-01 17:59 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <Ur2dnYJO0aLrbp3SnZ2dnUVZ_qSdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #8576 |
Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201201.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote: > Remember folks, Andy is a GPL stooge because he gets paid by Red Hat > to write GPL software. It's actually the other way around. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-01 16:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4a1ec0b1-bee2-42bd-8297-fad25bac02ef@p16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8576 |
On Jan 1, 6:45 pm, Fritz Wuehler <fr...@spamexpire-201201.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote: > Remember folks, Andy is a GPL stooge because he gets paid by Red Hat to > write GPL software. If he had to get an honest job and absorb the R&D > costs himself I doubt he'd be singing the same twisted tune. Actually, having to absorb R&D costs yourself can make GPL'd source more attractive, since it can substantially reduce R&D costs. > But he might, GPL is a virus and the only cure is reality they > can't face. Its only a "virus" if the capabilities offered by the GPL'd code is too compelling to step away from. And if the capabilities offered by the GPL'd code are too compelling to step away from, then under capitalism the creators of that code have the right to specify the terms under which it is used. Taking away their right to do so requires over-riding copyrights, taking away individual rights in the name of some ideology that doesn't like what those author's did *with* their individual rights. But where is the limit of that? After all, the argument that copyright depends on the creators using it in a way that the user approves of is commonplace among internet media pirates and commercial software pirates. And "we get to use whatever we want" may well win in a popularity contest over whatever ideology you are trying to impose here. Accepting the general principle that the ideology of the user can over- ride the copyright protection granted to the creator seems to be more dangerous to the commercial interests of commercial software companies than accepting the right of open-source creators to place whatever limits *they* wish to put on their creations that they are entitled to, under the institution of copyright.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 6 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web