Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by belorn | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

belorn

> Having no problem with closed source does not make you "anti-free-software".

While true, its a bit odd of a statement. The following statements are also equally true:

Having no problem with deforestation does not make you "anti-environmentalist".

Having no problem with Ku Klux Klan members does not make you "anti-tolerance".

Having no problem with murder and theft does not make you "anti-government".

Except... if you are helping others in deforestation, the environmentalism movement will dislike you. If you are helping the Ku Klux Klan, the tolerance movement will dislike you. If you are helping murders, the government will lock you in.

So why do you label FSF as zealots for disliking actions that helps those that want to threaten users with lawsuits and prevent new versions of software for being used, shared or modified?

View on HN

>So why do you label FSF as zealots for disliking actions that helps those that want to threaten users with lawsuits

Without even getting into the broken-ness of your analogies, being anti-DRM and anti-patent-abuse and so on is one thing. Calling someone evil because they don't publish the source of their app is quite another. According to their dogma, if I write a program and don't release the source code, I have perpetrated some horrible thing on the world. Regardless of any other interaction I might have with a user of my app.

Pardon my French, but that's fucking idiotic.

And even if I do release the source, I'm in the wrong if I don't release it under their pet license of choice. (Though not exactly "evil".)

What if my goal is to just see my code in use, not get embroiled in political battles? BSD is a de-facto more permissive license. What if I don't care if some corporation comes along and takes my code and releases a product based on it? Cool! I've helped the world somehow! And people who want to use my code don't have to get involved in GPL politics and drama!

My problem with the FSF is that they assume they are Right, their stance is Right, and anyone who disagrees or dissents is Wrong. Hence dogma. I know religions with more ideological tolerance.

> What if I don't care if some corporation comes along and takes my code and releases a product based on it? Cool! I've helped the world somehow!

Say you developed a program that keep tracks of group of people. The Ku Klux Klan use it to track down black people, and the anti-tolerance movement use it to track Ku Klux Klan. You helped the world and the anti-tolerance movement should be happy right? If they would prefer that the tool could not be used by the Ku Klux Klan, then they are evil zealots with no ideological tolerance.

Pardon my French too, but that's is fucking idiotic.

> And people who want to use my code don't have to get involved in GPL politics and drama!

That is a very dishonest statement. People can use Debian without becoming involved with politics and drama. I will state fact-less that most people who use GPL have not becoming involved with politics and drama.

> I know religions with more ideological tolerance.

Like BSD proponents I suppose? You own comment stated BSD as the right choice and anyone who disagrees is wrong. Maybe instead of preaching tolerance, you practice tolerance of people that disagree with you. Is it not more tolerant behavior avoid derogatory terms?

>Say you developed a program that keep tracks of group of people. The Ku Klux Klan use it to track down black people, and the anti-tolerance movement use it to track Ku Klux Klan.

Stop it. You're basically engaging in a not-hitler version of Godwin's Law. And it's not even relevant, since the GPL is only about source code, not about whatever that code is used for. In your completely arbitrary and fucked up example, as long as the KKK released the source code to their tracking app, the GPL has nothing to say.

>You own comment stated BSD as the right choice and anyone who disagrees is wrong.

No, I said BSD is a de-facto more permissive license. It objectively has fewer restrictions on a developer than the GPL. Read what I said, not what you want me to have said, please.

What you said was:

> BSD is a de-facto more permissive license. ... And people who want to use my code don't have to get involved in GPL politics and drama!

So yes, you statement was an "BSD as the right choice, GPL is the wrong choice". If you actually want to be tolerant of people right to license what they want, you should not badmouth their choices when they don't pick the same as you.

> as long as the KKK released the source code to their tracking app, the GPL has nothing to say.

I have said nothing about the license. I have said that the anti-tolerance movement would have something to say when that program helps KKK. I also said that it is an understandable reaction from the anti-tolerance movement. They are allowed to be both thankful for the help they got, and scornful about the fact that it is helping KKK.

This is the same complain when FSF dislike when proprietarization is made easier by other peoples license choices. They are thankful for the help, and also scornful about the fact that it makes their goal harder to achieve. If you don't find that relevant because "its a license" or because of godwin, then that is up to you.

I wonder why is it always the anti-GNU people who are behaving like raging teenagers? I have never heard FSF advocate call people zealot or "fucking idiotic" for preferring other license, but the other way around it's a rather common occurrence. I don't want to generalize, but I guess it has to do with they kinds of people who like and dislike GNU.

The day when people will say "oh I like BSD better" instead of "OMG BSD is much more free you are fucking idiots for liking GPL" will be a good day.

Who'd have thought? Some people don't like being called "evil" for what they choose to do with their code.

Who has ever called BSD "evil"? They do have a devil icon (a point Uncyclopedia is having fun with), but who in their right mind would call BSD evil as a concept?

Proprietary software is sometimes called evil by the free software movement. It is after all the very model that the movement was created to destroy. The environmentalist movement will also call deforestation "evil", as well as anyone who dump oil into the oceans.

BSD however are not Proprietary software. Is it possible, that this discussion is not really about BSD, but rather you using it as a front for your own interesting in proprietary software model. In that case, you are being very dishonest.

I wasn't even talking about BSD. I was talking about the FSF's propensity to throw around words like "evil" when discussing non-open-source software.

The whole BSD thing is a misunderstanding by you and a guy upthread. I never stated anything about BSD's superiority, only that it is an objectively more open license. GPL has objectively more restrictions and de facto associates you with a group that many don't want to be seen as part of.

> BSD is a de-facto more permissive license.

Just saying something like this seems slightly dishonest. It's more permissive for the first receiver of the code, but that therefore means that they are permitted to reduce the persmissions of subsequent receivers of the code.

So 'more permissive' in a sense yes, but not in the sense that the FSF care about - the freedoms that the end user is guaranteed. It's quite possible that the end user is ultimately granted fewer permissions because code was licensed BSD rather than GPL.

I guess part of the issue is that Stallman came up with "Free Software," so there's obviously a version of the meaning of the term which is entirely up to Stallman.

If you agree there's a wider meaning of the term, then it's up to context whether someone's making a no true Scotsman argument or rationalizing the behavior of an antagonist.

Just pointing this out, because you might as well be arguing the meta-point about there being a cathedral of the meaning of "Free Software," or a bazaar. Hah.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com