[Ilugc] change in name
- From: prabhu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Prabhu Ramachandran)
- Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 22:36:43 +0530
I find this thread with many inconsistencies. I have nothing against
the GPL. There are many uses for a license such as the GPL. Its just
this bigoted attitude that everything should be GPL'd that is
irritating and pretty ridiculous.
I predict that someone will accuse me of using proprietary code and
being evil etc. To set the record straight, I dont run pirated
software. I posses a legal copy of an old version (IIRC 1998) of
Applixware and thats about it (I have seldom used it and its not even
installed right now). I've used less commercial software than most
folks on this list. I run one OS -- Debian GNU/Linux. I might be
evil in your eyes (but it could be your eyes that are fooling you ;).
"SK" == Suraj Kumar <suraj@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
ravi> And how exactly is he doing that, might I ask?
SK> Because proprietary software world calls sharing software with
SK> your neighbours itself as illegal and gives it a name -
SK> "Piracy". The dictionary meaning of the word piracy is:
SK> "robbery on the high seas; taking a ship away from the control
SK> of those who are legally entitled to it". Is this what you do
SK> by sharing software with your friends? I disagree.
If you want to use the dictionary selectively to prove your point its
very easy to break down GPL.
1. The state of being free; exemption from the power and
control of another; liberty; independence.
And dont tell me GPL is free of restriction! I've read the license.
You cant include GPL code with BSD code even though BSD is free.
Please, I understand why the GPL is designed that way. I'm not that
stupid. Its just that I wanted to show you that you can use a
dictionary meaning selectively to prove anything.
Yes, I know you'll say free beer and free speech and free this and
free that. So what? You still forget the dictionary meaning. Using
the dictionary meaning means nothing. Anyone will tell you that a
words meaning depends on the context.
Anyway, if the agreement is that you are not allowed to do something
when you buy something. You can't. If you dont like it dont buy it.
That does not give you the right to break that agreement. It doesn't
make it right or wrong. Its just the way it is.
SK> When you buy a software/music/video it belongs to *you*. and
SK> its *you* who decides what to do with it. If I buy an audio CD
SK> its upto me to give it to my friends to enjoy it or keep it
SK> all to myself, what does the owner of the music/software have
SK> to do here? lets say, when I buy a car, its *mine* and its
Ofcourse he does. When you buy something you are saying that you
agree to the terms and conditions of usage (heck, thats what you pay
for!). If you cant or dont read the agreement it is not an excuse.
If you dont like it dont buy it. Just because you paid a few bucks
does not mean you own the universe.
I also find this attitude totally inconsistent. You say you will not
accept a license that restricts you from distributing the code or
whatever. Yet, when someone buys a copy of Emacs from RMS (I mean he
pays for the CD's plus whatever RMS asks for) and then decides to do
what he wants with the code (as in extends it, sells it and does not
release the code as GPL) that he *paid* for you say its wrong? What
kind of one sided freedom is this? If a commercial company gives you
a license you say its wrong and we should have the right to
steal^H^H^H^H^H, umm, distribute the code but if RMS distributes his
"free" software the commercial company cant use it in its product?
What freedom is this?
So, point is, its not about freedom. Its about keeping the sources
eternally open (by closing doors on certain "evil" people -- what
irony?). Whether that is a good idea or not is a different issue.
But its definitely not "freedom" as we all know it.
Besides, its OK if Al-Qaeda or Hitler (lets hope that accelerates the
death of this thread. die thread! die thread! ;) uses GPL software and
makes the sources GPL'd -- even if those sources killed half of
humanity! However if some poor bloke who has to make a living writing
code (just to feed, clothe and shelter himself) wants to use it, its
evil? So all this talk of ethics and morality is garbage.
This talk of ethics and morality is usually post facto rationalization
and you try to market this ideology "that everything should be GPL'd"
with it. Nice try.
Thinking that everything must be GPL'd is absurd. No one system or
license will fit the bill (no pun intended) all the time. There is a
place for different licenses. Nothing wrong with that. Its absurd
expecting a one size fits all solution.
So please don't be fanatical about anything.
Other related posts: