Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Alfred M. Szmidt (amszmidt@mastodon.social)'s status on Saturday, 09-Nov-2024 08:00:50 JST Alfred M. Szmidt

   • vermaden
   • Amber

   @puppygirlhornypost2 The #GNU GPL doesn't prohibit anything, you can use code licensed under the #GNU GPL for any purpose, however you want. Sorta the whole point of #SoftwareFreedom
   @vermaden

   • anban likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Alfred M. Szmidt (amszmidt@mastodon.social)'s status on Saturday, 09-Nov-2024 09:02:23 JST Alfred M. Szmidt

     in reply to

     • vermaden
     • Amber

     @vermaden The CDDL was specifically designed to be incompatible with the #GNU GPL. But you're confusing license compatibility, and the ability to do things.

     Like _all_ free software licenses, which include the #GNU GPL, 3-clause BSD, and even the CDDL, you're perfectly allowed to do anything you want, run how ever you want, modify in any shape you want, and share however you want.

     @puppygirlhornypost2

   • Embed this notice
     vermaden (vermaden@mastodon.bsd.cafe)'s status on Saturday, 09-Nov-2024 09:02:25 JST vermaden

     in reply to

     • Amber

     @amszmidt @puppygirlhornypost2

     > The #GNU GPL doesn't prohibit anything

     Are You drunk or on narcotics?

     The GPL is the MOST LIMITED license on the planed only compatible with itself and nothing more.

     Why the CDDL licensed ZFS has so much trouble being used in the Linux field? Because of GPL limitations.

     The CDDL licensed ZFS code runs and works flawlessly on FreeBSD thanks to the REAL FREEDOM of BSD license.

     While ZFS can not even try to be 1st class citizen on Linux 'thanks' to GPL retarded status :(

   • Embed this notice
     Alfred M. Szmidt (amszmidt@mastodon.social)'s status on Saturday, 09-Nov-2024 09:04:13 JST Alfred M. Szmidt

     in reply to

     • vermaden
     • Amber

     @vermaden or by your own ... misguided account .. FreeBSD is the most "MOST LIMITED" system since it doesn't include any GNU GPL code! Why does FreeBSD refuse to include code!!

     Absurd no? Maybe you're the one on drugs...

     @puppygirlhornypost2

   • Embed this notice
     Alfred M. Szmidt (amszmidt@mastodon.social)'s status on Saturday, 09-Nov-2024 09:05:25 JST Alfred M. Szmidt

     in reply to

     • vermaden
     • Amber

     @vermaden Companies like Sony, etc, use a permissive license because they don't care about your freedom.

     @puppygirlhornypost2

     anban likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     vermaden (vermaden@mastodon.bsd.cafe)'s status on Saturday, 09-Nov-2024 09:05:27 JST vermaden

     in reply to

     • Amber

     @amszmidt @puppygirlhornypost2

     I am sorry but are you fucking blind or retarded?

     While You can do literally EVERYTHING with code licensed under BSD license - you are like in chains with GPL code.

     Why do You think companies like SONY or NetApp/Netflix/Apple/SEGA/NINTENDO use BSD licensed code instead of GPL bullshit?

   • Embed this notice
     Alfred M. Szmidt (amszmidt@mastodon.social)'s status on Saturday, 09-Nov-2024 09:08:51 JST Alfred M. Szmidt

     in reply to

     • vermaden
     • Amber

     @vermaden You realise that .. that would be against the license you're so loudly defending, and the whole point of the 3-claus BSD license -- to keep attribution. So really, no, not what "BSD code is for". Not to mention -- illegal.

     @puppygirlhornypost2

   • Embed this notice
     vermaden (vermaden@mastodon.bsd.cafe)'s status on Saturday, 09-Nov-2024 09:08:52 JST vermaden

     in reply to

     • Amber

     @amszmidt @puppygirlhornypost2

     This is what BSD code is for.

     Real FREEDOM.

     You will never understand that concept.

     anban repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     Alfred M. Szmidt (amszmidt@mastodon.social)'s status on Saturday, 09-Nov-2024 09:15:32 JST Alfred M. Szmidt

     in reply to

     • vermaden
     • Amber

     @vermaden Because policy, not because of software freedom. Now *plonk* troll. @puppygirlhornypost2

   • Embed this notice
     vermaden (vermaden@mastodon.bsd.cafe)'s status on Saturday, 09-Nov-2024 09:15:34 JST vermaden

     in reply to

     • Amber

     @amszmidt @puppygirlhornypost2

     So WHY the BSD licensed FreeBSD does not have ANY problems with including CDDL code?

     Linux is the GPL bullshit problem.

   • Embed this notice
     Alexandre Oliva (lxo@gnusocial.jp)'s status on Sunday, 10-Nov-2024 06:22:32 JST Alexandre Oliva

     in reply to

     • vermaden
     freedom is control over one's own life, and GPL gives you that as much as the most permissive license
     
     what you appear to be mislabeling as freedom is power over others. nobody deserves that, and the GPL doesn't offer you any of that. other licenses grant such powers along with freedoms, but ideally licensees won't use them. those are not desirable, they're not freedoms, they're the opposite of freedoms.
     anban likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     vermaden (vermaden@mastodon.bsd.cafe)'s status on Sunday, 10-Nov-2024 10:39:18 JST vermaden

     in reply to

     • Alexandre Oliva

     @lxo

     Do you not understand the difference between GPL and BSD license?

     In GPL - when You redistribute - You are ALWAYS FORCED to share the changes.

     In BSD - You do whatever the fuck you like - real freedom - You do not have to share anything.

     BSD gives MORE freedom then GPL.

     anban repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Monday, 11-Nov-2024 11:32:10 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • vermaden
     @vermaden The BSD's do not give you freedom as they are full of proprietary software (proprietary microcode, proprietary peripheral software, unlicensed files and some proprietary programs).
     
     "Sony, NetApp, Netflix,Apple, SEGA and nintendo" like weak licenses as they can remove the freedom and add chains and use it to chain many people and all you need to do is add some text to a menu section few people read.
     
     All of those companies are free to use GPLv2-or-later and GPLv3-or-later software for any purpose, even commercially - all they need to do is the trivial act of including the source code and installation information, or writing up a written offer for such and actually honoring the written offer for those who actually receive a copy of the software (they are free to do anything they like with it on their own computers if they don't distribute/convey it).
     
     But none of those companies want freedom, all they want is the power to take the customers freedom and some sucker has done most of the work for them completely gratis and might even end up thanking them when the software is used against them (for example, the main curl developer has a car that runs curl, except he has no control over that version of curl and it appears it is being used to spy of them).
     
     
     Weak licenses happen to give freedom by default, but they give the *power* to *take freedom* and as a result, a lot of freedom is taken - arguably more freedom is taken in the end that outweighs the freedom a lesser amount of people get from downloading the original sources.
     anban likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Monday, 11-Nov-2024 11:33:04 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     • vermaden
     @vermaden *on him
   • Embed this notice
     Alexandre Oliva (lxo@gnusocial.jp)'s status on Monday, 11-Nov-2024 23:37:07 JST Alexandre Oliva

     in reply to

     • vermaden
     the GPL establishes requirements that prevents you from gaining power over others through the software. but again, that's about power, not freedom.
     
     you can still place the software at your service to whatever ends you wish, inasmuchas those wishes are within your own freedom, rather than about overpowering others
     
     I acknowledge that some wish to conflate freedom and power, and to gain power over others. the GPL is not conducive of this kind of abusive relationship.
     Panos Alevropoulos and anban like this.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Tuesday, 12-Nov-2024 20:56:31 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • vermaden
     @vermaden >when You redistribute - You are ALWAYS FORCED to share the changes.
     No GNU license forces you to redistribute - you are free to not share it at all.
     
     It is better for a program not to exist than to be proprietary.
     
     You only need to respect the freedom of those who you distribute the software to - you can refuse to distribute the software to anyone but your customers, but still, you cannot restrict the freedom of your customers.
     
     The GPLv3 only gives permissions - the government is the one saying you're not allowed to make it proprietary, since copyright.
     
     >BSD gives MORE freedom then GPL.
     There is not just one "BSD license", there is the BSD 4-clause, BSD 3-clause, BSD 2-clause, BSD 1-clause and BSD 0-clause,
     
     The amount of software under weak licenses has caused an incredible *loss* of freedom, as pretty much all proprietary software used to attack humanity re-uses software under weak licenses.
     
     You're confusing freedom with restrictions - freedom is something than increases the amount of freedom in the world, while restrictions are something that reduces it.
     
     "But my freedom to put people in chains" you say - but it should be obvious that enslaving people by putting people in chains is a restrictive act the removes freedom that should not be permitted.
     
     While it isn't immoral to simply construct a tool like a chain, as chains have many good usages, it would be immoral to construct chains if you know that the primary usage will be to enslave people - in the same lieu, while it isn't immoral to merely write and publish free software under a weak license (even though you could do better by licensing under the GPLv3-or-later or AGPLv3-or-later), it is immoral to write and publish software you know will have the primary usage of restricting computer users freedom.
     anban likes this.