I doubt anyone would be interested, but thought it worth asking, see if anyone has any opinions.
Screenshot: http://cl.ly/image/0o1h0q1L3u1o/o
You can add compiled binaries using releases: https://github.com/blog/1547-release-your-software
Within the last couple months, there was a pretty big discussion featuring BSD licensers vs GPL licensers. If I remember correctly, the GPLers were saying that by using BSD, one enables software freedoms to be taken away, and therefore BSD and MIT licenses should be strongly opposed.
GPL perponents always claim its about "freedom". But it's one specific type of freedom, to the exclusion of all others.
except, according to RMS and his fans, any choice but GPL is "wrong".
You may want to make this thread about opinion and morality, since you can't "win" any other way, but that's not at all what it's about. The subjective merits of licenses are not at issue in any way, shape, or form.
Sorry my name isn't RMS. I don't have to "win".
"Releasing your code under one of the BSD licenses,
or some other permissive non-copyleft license,
is not doing wrong*"
"Is not doing wrong", the Exact word for word opposite to your claim.
Now please tell that you are sorry for misrepresenting someone else opinion and promise never to do it again. It is a shameful act.
>The cause of the setback is the existence of a non-copylefted compiler that therefore becomes the base for nonfree compilers. The identity of that compiler -- whether it be LLVM, GCC, or something else -- is a secondary detail. To make GCC available for such use would be throwing in the towel. If that enables GCC to "win", the victory would be hollow, because it would not be a victory for what really matters: users' freedom.
> The only code that helps us and not our adversaries is copylefted code. Free software released under a pushover license is available for us to use, but available to our adversaries just as well. If you want your work to give freedom an advantage, use the leverage available to you -- copyleft your code. I invite those working on major add-ons to LLVM to release them under GNU GPL version-3-or-later.
If that isn't RMS saying he believes its wrong to release code under a BSD/MIT/etc permissive license, what is it?
This is the whole reason so many people use BSD or MIT (or similar) these days - they just want to write code and let others use it. RMS seems to be locked in some kind of fantasy world where if someone uses something other than GPL, it will mean the end of the world.
For extra kicks - http://blog.libertymcateer.com/2013/06/stallmans-blindspot-o...
Now please say you are sorry for cherry picking one comment from the website of an ORGANISATION I NEVER MENTIONED and attributing it to A PERSON.
The goal that RMS has been striving for are: The users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software.
When people create proprietary software, then that is counter to RMS goal. proprietary software denies the user under threat of lawsuit the freedom to copy, distribute, study, change and improve (and at times run) the software.
BSD or MIT provides software to anyone, including people who use it for good, and people who use it for bad. When it comes to defending the freedom of others, it simply lie down and provided software indiscriminately.
To compare it to an similar goal, non-profit aid organizations try to provided money to extremely poor people. Their goal is to help people not starve to death and help improve their lives. However, they do not want their money to go to criminals, thieves, and drug cartels as that would hurt their overarching goal. Doing nothing, i.e giving money indiscriminately, would be an act of weakness. The act however of giving money to poor would still not be "wrong".
It is not wrong to indiscriminately give money to poor, but it is not the best way. It can even hurt the overarching goal of improving peoples lives.
(That you are shamelessly misrepresenting someone else opinion is a problem. I am deeply sorry for you and I hope you can find help.)
I'm neither of those things. I've commented on one very specific topic - RMS/etc and their cult-like dedication to anti-developer, anti-corporate software licences.
My comments on this have not varied, so I don't know why you think I'm confused.
This issue is also a tiny fraction of what makes up the world, and while this issue concerns me, I'm hardly angry about it. Even if I were, how does that equate to "angry with the world"?
> The goal that RMS has been striving for are: The users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software.
I'm well aware of his stated goals.
> BSD or MIT provides software to anyone, including people who use it for good, and people who use it for bad.
"use it for bad" - if the thing they want to do is so bad, why would they be bothered about breaking a license in the first place? Let's come back tot hat later.
> non-profit aid organizations try to provided money to extremely poor people. Their goal is to help people not starve to death and help improve their lives. However, they do not want their money to go to criminals, thieves, and drug cartels as that would hurt their overarching goal.
Ok so first off. You just compared a HUGE community of software developers who use BSD/MIT licences, to drug cartels and thieves. Seriously? Besides the ridiculousness of the comparison, its downright fucking insulting.
A better comparison would be a charity run by a church group, that puts its idealogical belief system before the goal of raising more money for the poor. This actually happened in Australia a few years ago. Basically, the Salvation Army complained because a song given freely by a comedian for a Christmas CD (to generate funds for them to use to, you know, help the poor) makes lighthearted jokes about christianity (i.e. saying he doesn't believe jesus is magical).
This is no different than RMS (through the GPL) alienating hundreds if not thousands of companies who are willing to contribute to open source efforts, but also expect to be able to viably sell a product based on said code.
RMS goal is explicitly not "better code". If I wrote a 100% compatible alternative to GCC tomorrow, that produced 500% more efficient binaries, with a 200% speed increase in compile time, but released it under the BSD license, RMS would say "we can't use this" - not because its not better. Because someone else might ALSO take that product, package it up somehow, and make money from people willing to pay for it. Does that other product prevent him from using the original? No. Does it prevent me, the original author from using, improving, or even making money from the original product? No.
I'm not telling you that you shouldn't use the GPL license. Not at all. If you feel its right for you do that. I'm saying don't get on some high fucking horse telling people who choose not to use GPL, that what they're doing is "wrong" (either directly or indirectly, or via comparison to thieves, drug cartels and other criminals) because it doesn't fit with your specific ideology.
> Ok so first off. You just compared a HUGE community of software developers who use BSD/MIT licences, to drug cartels and thieves
No, I described the BSD/MIT community as one that indiscriminately gives (in the comparison, people who give indiscriminately money to poor people who ask). Which then comes back to you being confused. If you are not confused, I can not see how you so completely misunderstood it.
> If I wrote a 100% compatible alternative to GCC tomorrow, that produced 500% more efficient binaries, with a 200% speed increase in compile time, but released it under the BSD license
If I gave 500% more money to people in need than the red cross, but gave it indiscriminately to anyone who ask, would that improve peoples life? Army lords that recruits child armies would be happy to get some of that money, as would drug cartels. Terrorist also. But 500% is a bigger number than 100% and I am not preventing the original target of helping poor people. Poor people in need, terrorists and drug cartels alike get money! Win-Win right?
Last: I'm not telling you that you should use the GPL. Not at all. If you feel BSD/MIT is right for you do that. I'm saying don't get on some high fucking horse telling people who choose not to use BSD, that what they're doing is "wrong" because it doesn't fit with your specific ideology.
you know you are right. Absolutely, you weren't comparing those who provide code under non-GPL licenses to cartels and thieves.
You were, and are comparing companies and individuals make 100% legal use of code that is released under a software license you happen to disagree with, to cartels, thieves and apparently now terrorists.
That's so much better.
> Last: I'm not telling you that you should use the GPL
RMS/etc is telling everyone loud and clear that non-GPL code is "wrong", hence those using a BSD/MIT license are wrong-doers.
Again, so much better.
"Releasing your code under one of the BSD licenses,
or some other permissive non-copyleft license,
is not doing wrong*"
For profit companies are created in order to create profit. Environmentalism was created to regarding concerns for environmental conservation and improvement of the health of the environment. Police was created to stop criminals.
Organizations has goals, and they want to achieve them. Permissive license both helps the free software movement, but also makes their goal harder to achieve, thus they favor Copyleft licenses which only helps the free software movement. It doesn't make permissive bad, wrong, evil or any other labels like that. It simply is not as good as copyleft for achieving the free software movements goal.
In what way is this surprising?
So, how is that not calling something "bad"?
> Writing non-free software is not an ethically legitimate activity, so if people who do this run into trouble, that's good! All businesses based on non-free software ought to fail, and the sooner the better.
I have seen hints of this misconception before, but is this really a common thing? Do some people really believe that “free software” is exclusively GPL software?
Either way, RMS comments/actions re: BSD licensed code still don't match up with the "official" policy.
BSD-like licenses emphasize the rights of downstream developers (and repackagers) at the expense of the freedoms of their users. A Cisco user has no access to all the originally BSD-licensed software inside their routers.
Is it now that I should do some ad hominem attacks on openbsd project leader, just so the message really sinks in?
The difference is, anyone can freely make use of BSD licensed code, as they see fit.
Using GPL code means you have to "drink the kool-aid" - they don't just think any other choice is wrong, they force their view onto others.
Anyone but the users of "improved" versions.
How is it my right or the right of the user to demand what Fred do with the code he wrote?
You do not just think any other choice is wrong, you are forcing your view onto others. Please stop.
How am I forcing my view onto others?
I take issue with people claiming the GPL is somehow "good" while BSD is "bad", and thus I reply. I'm not telling anyone they shouldn't USE the GPL. I'm saying stop acting like a door knocking jehovah witness trying to convert everyone else to use the GPL.
From a company standpoint, this makes sense if the parts are large and costed a lot to develop. Some companies eventually make these parts available eventually, some don't though - possible because open sourcing something that you initially charge for, could piss some customers off when they realize that they could have gotten it free.
My suggestion (because it's abandoned) is to use a permissive license.
Also, open sourcing it doesn't preclude the opportunity of releasing it for sale in the Mac App Store if time permits down the road. Textual is a great example of this:
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/textual-irc-client/id4030126... https://github.com/Codeux/Textual
Of course nothing may happen (See autodesk animator and Executor) - both of these were open sourced over 10 years after they were popular though.
If there's any effort involved in turning the source code into a runnable app I suggest:
- Open-sourcing it, perhaps using the GPL.
- Selling pre-compiled binaries via gumroad