?

Log in

People Talking on the IRC - "Free Software" and "Open Source" - Shlomif's Technical Posts Community [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Shlomif's Technical Posts Community

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Links
[Links:| Shlomi Fish's Homepage Main Journal Homesite Blog Planet Linux-IL Amir Aharoni in Unicode open dot dot dot ]

People Talking on the IRC - "Free Software" and "Open Source" [May. 1st, 2007|10:53 pm]
Shlomif's Technical Posts Community

shlomif_tech

[shlomif]
[Tags|, , , , , , , , , , ]
[Current Location |Home]
[Current Mood |grumpygrumpy]
[Current Music |Yehuda Poliker - They Were Dancing Barefoot.]

This is an IRC conversation that took place on Freenode. I am "rindolf".

   <bogdan>  rindolf: so you like being selfish, eh?
   <bogdan>  and you wanted to find a reason to be selfish.
  <rindolf>  bogdan: http://xrl.us/h2kn
  <rindolf>  bogdan: Rand made a mistake by naming her book "The virtue
             of Selfishness".
  <rindolf>  bogdan: she didn't mean it in the sense of "Complete
             disrespect for others".
  <spectei>  GPL > BSD
  <rindolf>  spectei: GPL is more selfish.
 <Dianora_>  BSD > GPL
  <rindolf>  Dianora_: :-)
 <Dianora_>  BSD is free, GPL is not free.
  <rindolf>  Dianora_: not you too.
  <rindolf>  spectei: the BSD is free, even Stallman thinks so.
 <Dianora_>  The GPL is like finding a coupon for $20 for pants on the
             street, the BSDL is like finding a $20 bill on the street.
 <Dianora_>  I would rather have the $20 bill
  <rindolf>  Dianora_: please lets agree to accept Stallman's definition
             of Freedom, and call BSD-style licensed software by another
             name.
  <rindolf>  Dianora_: I don't see the anlogy.
 <Dianora_>  even esr prefers the BSDL
  <rindolf>  Dianora_: yes, I know.
  <rindolf>  That's what I use for my software.
  <rindolf>  If I can help it.
 <Dianora_>  No Stallmans version of Freedom is a political
             mis-labelling of true freedom.
  <rindolf>  Dianora_: I'm not saying he defined freedom.
  <rindolf>  Dianora_: but he coined the term "free softwae
 <Dianora_>  He can try to relabel English anyway he wants, but he is
             not taking my language from me.
 <Dianora_>  BAH!
  <rindolf>  Dianora_: but different things mean different things in
             different contexts.
  <rindolf>  Dianora_: you can call BSD-style software PD-software or
             whatever.
  <rindolf>  Dianora_: they are nutjobs.
  <rindolf>  But they are good people.
  <rindolf>  They're on our side.
 <Dianora_>  BSD is FREE, GPL is a restrictive license, that is NOT free
          *  rindolf is a nutjob but tries to be a good person.
  <rindolf>  Dianora_: fine. The GPL is not free.
  <spectei>  it is free software!
  <rindolf>  "I want to be there, I want to be there".
  <pnbeast>  GPL is, in fact, a very non-restrictive license.
  <rindolf>  "fine you are there."
 <Dianora_>  No, it is NOT free software, the GPL is a restrictive
             license. period.
  <rindolf>  "danny! What are you doing here?"
  <spectei>  Dianora_, it is free software as defined by the FSF
  <rindolf>  "Here? <crying"
  <spectei>  :D
 <Dianora_>  it restricts your right to use that software!
  <rindolf>  "did I say something wrong?"
  <spectei>  Dianora_, in a good way!
  <rindolf>  It's from Sesame street.
 <Dianora_>  the FSF can label black as white and I will still not
             believe them!
  <rindolf>  Dianora_: the GPL is better than the MS EULA.
 <Dianora_>  rindolf yes ;-)
  <rindolf>  Dianora_: I've contributed to GPL software, and I cannot
             improve MSIE.
  <rindolf>  Or windows.
 <Dianora_>  don't get me wrong, I use GPL software, I write in a couple
             of GPL projects, but I disagree that GPL is free.
  <rindolf>  Or Excel.
  <rindolf>  Dianora_: like I said if we want to communicate we have to
             agree on a terminology.
 <Dianora_>  then the GPL is just that, the GPL a restrictive license.
  <pnbeast>  I won't argue "free", but I can't imagine how you think the
             GPL is restrictive. Can you explain that to me?
  <rindolf>  Most people accept the fact that free software is software
             by the FSF FS definition.
 <Dianora_>  no
 <Dianora_>  I am afraid you would be wrong
 <Dianora_>  available source code yes, but free? uh no. never.
  <rindolf>  Let's avoid the term free software.
  <rindolf>  Let's call it open-source.
 <Dianora_>  as I said, GPL is like a $20 coupon
  <rindolf>  Dianora_: do you think the GPL is not open-source?
 <Dianora_>  open-source is a good compromise.
  <rindolf>  Dianora_: ok.
  <rindolf>  Free software can also mean gratis software.
  <rindolf>  And the GPL is sourceware.
 <Dianora_>  you could have sourcecode that was not licensed to be
             changed or used by anyone else, but is available to be
             looked at
  <rindolf>  Dianora_: I hope you're not using qmail.
 <Dianora_>  in fact, everyones favourite whipping boy licenses his code
             that way.
 <Dianora_>  I'd use qmail if it was the best tool for the job, no
             matter what I thought of djb
  <spectei>  opensource doesn't mean anything!
 <Dianora_>  Disliking a person is no reason not to use someones code.
  <spectei>  haha
  <rindolf>  Dianora_: http://www.shlomifish.org/open-source/anti/qmail/
  <spectei>  dan bernstein is a wacko!
 <Dianora_>  djb does not allow his code to be modified ;-)
  <rindolf>  Dianora_: I find Theo objectionable but at least OpenBSD is
             open-source.
 <Dianora_>  naw, I will make up my own mind thankyouverymuch.
  <rindolf>  So I can take it , fork it, etc.
  <rindolf>  Dianora_: I cannot with DJB's software.
 <Dianora_>  OpenBSD is open-source *FREE* code
 <Dianora_>  *correct* both DJB and GPL are open-source but both are
             non-free!
  <rindolf>  Dianora_: and I'm not saying it just because I dislike DJB.
             Although due to the qmail licensing it is a problem.
  <spectei>  GPL is free :D
 <Dianora_>  gosh, you made my point for me. restricted licenses.
  <rindolf>  Dianora_: qmail is sourceware not opensource.
 <Dianora_>  naw rindolf
  <rindolf>  Dianora_: have you read the OSD.
  <rindolf>  ?
  <rindolf>  Or reveled source, or available source, or whatever.
 <Dianora_>  we both agreed that when you could look at the source, it
             was open-source no?
  <rindolf>  Dianora_: no.
  <rindolf>  Dianora_: open source is software that complies with OSD or
             the FSD.
  <rindolf>  Preferably both.
 <Dianora_>  but both GPL and DJB's license are restricted use. ;-)
  <pnbeast>  Come on, Dianora_, won't you define "restricted" for me?
 <Dianora_>  the OSD or FSD can call black white and I will still not
             use their definition. ;-)
  <rindolf>  Dianora_: yes, but the GPL is more usable than the DJB
             terms.
 <Dianora_>  pnbeast: you are defining it yourself.
  <rindolf>  Dianora_: I can fork GPLed code.
  <rindolf>  And I can link against an LGPLed library.
  <rindolf>  But I cannot fork DJB's code.
 <Dianora_>  rindolf: doesn't matter! it's still restricted!
  <rindolf>  Dianora_: it is restricted, yes.
 <Dianora_>  in fact
  <spectei>  Dianora_, bad things are restricted!
  <rindolf>  Dianora_: but it's not black and white.
  <pnbeast>  I guess that's a "no".
 <Dianora_>  the BSDL _is_ also restricted
  <spectei>  closed source proprietary software is bad
 <Dianora_>  pnbeast: You defined it yourself
  <spectei>  ergo it is good that it is restricted
  <spectei>  one can be free and not free to poison a well
 <Dianora_>  GPL poisons wells
  <spectei>  opposite!
  <spectei>  it keeps software free!
 <Dianora_>  GPL is a virus.
  <rindolf>  Dianora_: Windows < DJB < GPL < LGPL < BSD
LinkReply