IRC Mayhem.

Here you can discuss every aspect of Debian. Note: not for support requests!

Re: IRC Mayhem.

Postby dryden » 2016-05-20 12:04

mor wrote:Don't get thrown off by his somewhat harsh tone, he means well.


Well that is a friendly statement to make to begin with, so thank you.

However.....

And what he meant to say, I believe, is that using Free Software and Open Source interchangeably leads to confusion.
While Free Software is the ideology that promotes and advocates for the liberation of code from proprietary licenses that restrict the freedom of users, Open Source is a developmental model, a way to work on software projects if you will.
Ideology on one hand, developmental model on the other.


Yes I've realized this and I realized this before I was being spoken to in this sense, here.

Open Source in fact, does not imply the ideology that is pushed on by Free Software and doesn't guarantee from final licenses being proprietary or non completely Free.
While any software to be licensed as Free has to have the source code available, it doesn't mean that the development process of said software had to be of the open source kind before releasing and licensing.


Sure, but in practical terms that distinction is moot. Of course it does in fact mean that you can "develop closedly" until you release, as you say. And that takes away some concern, but I do not even mean to develop closedly until I release, and what is release? Practically, this would imply not ever showing any public person or venue any of your code, or product, in the meantime? Practically infeasible. Because, any such release would invariably, probably, imply having to meet the terms of the license, even with some temporary, "inofficial" release.

The GPL does not talk about releases. It takes about propagation and conveyance, whatever the distinction may be.

So although you would be "protected from theft" as long as you don't "propagate" or "convey" anything, since other people could then only take away from your finished product, that has, at that point, already been released (hopefully). It does imply that any intermediate version that you might show to anyone (in public) can also be copied at will, and if you do this more than once, you entire source will be available under GPL regardless, at various times, and inevitably, in whole, prior to your actual first release date. And of course any subsequent versions would fall in with the same.

That means your development would be hidden but any intermediate milestones would be GPL, and public, and in agreement with those terms, if you have it that way.

As you see, there is some overlap between the two worlds, but the fundamental difference cannot be overlooked as you did even if, as you explained, you wanted to refer to the larger F(L)OSS cluster.


For me this distinction is at the heart of my contention with GPL, so your statement does not make sense here. My contention with GPL is that even though I want to be open source, the moment I want to cooperate with GPL code, I am in trouble. You also know very well that in the minds of the public (if they are aware of it at all) the phrase or term "open source" indicates this complete system. The impression is made, that "open source" and "open source" work well together. In practice there is a lot of strife between different open source licenses, such as between BSD license and Apache license and GPL.

So of course, I know the practical and structural distinctions, but in practice the result is interoperability or lack thereof. In practice GPL versus other "open source" licenses is like oil vs water. GPL is the oil that tries to separate itself.

Understanding this distinction well, would help you a lot in understanding the issues you are complaining about.


I don't think I need to understand these issues beyond what I already know, unless you really have clear, correct, to the point, and reasonable complaints, or distinctions to make, that actually have practical relevance as to my own case here, which is the topic and subject of my disagreement with it (GPL). That means, that if you are the wise person who has read these documents you espouse below, you can be the person making these arguments, and you do not need me to do your work for you, or to imply that once I have read these documents, I will invariably start to agree with you, which is deeply condescending of the nature at hand here, and of my right to disagree.

In general you cannot use documents written by others, or written by yourself at some other time, to make arguments for you as if the reading of such documents would invariably cause agreement with your statements. That is never true, and it is the condescending thing that people often do.

If you had read those documents yourself, you could make the arguments that you say they espouse, directly to me. Seeing that you do not, I don't think they are there.

So I will uphold my statements about GPL. And yes I am thinking about becoming a lawyer some day ;-).

The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

A program is free software if it gives users adequately all of these freedoms. Otherwise, it is nonfree. While we can distinguish various nonfree distribution schemes in terms of how far they fall short of being free, we consider them all equally unethical.


So here you see the all or nothing nothing. The only thing that agrees with GPL, is GPL itself.

In Java terms:

Code: Select all
interface License {
  boolean agreesWith(License l);
}

class GPL implements License {
  boolean agreesWith(License l) {
    return l instanceof GPL;
  }
}

;-)

Personally I reserve the right of distribution until such time as that I may not consider it necessary anymore. Particularly, I reserve the right of modified distribution (or) under a different name. For instance, if you wanted to distribute a modification that would take away from the core nature of my program, I would object. This is because it would blemish the name of the program, and could be considered to be identical to the requirement to credit the original authors. At least, preservation of author contributions may be a separate term under section 7, and I believe it often is.

Interesting to note that the GPL is itself not GPL, because you cannot modify it ;-).

Requiring a changed name is in agreement with GPL. Requiring author attribution is in agreement with GPL.

However, taking a program, and then deviously changing core attributes of the program, and then releasing it on public platforms, with more leverage than the original author has, only to thwart that original author, is also in agreement with GPL.

Most notably, people may have different opinions as to the quality of user interfaces. They may have different opinions as to the ethicalness of certain usage strategies. If you do not want the program to do something for whatever reason, for instance because you are in the process of developing something that would supersede that, or because it would sacrifice the nature and identity of the program, or because it would vastly increase the complexity and thus user-support nature of the program, which is not an uncommon case, I think, you would no longer be in agreement with GPL or what GNU considers "Free" software.

Most notably, not at all unimportant, the GPL requires you to specify a voiding of all warranty. Of course you could license it differently, but not if you incorporated code form others, and those others did not agree to also release their software under your license. What if I do not want to void all warranty?

Now suddenly I cannot do so. In general the statement comes down to "void all warranty except as required by law" which makes it untenable to begin with; in that case you would be better off informing your users as what those requirements by law could be. You create a lot of problems for people in litigation, because a clear understanding of the law in your locality would probably introduce a lot of categories for which the authors WOULD be responsible, or could be considered responsible, under law, depending on how that works there and whether there have been previous attempts to enforce such "rights" for users.

So for me, I consider it much more ethical to explain the warranty that I feel should be in agreement with what I think a software should have. For example, I should not be allowed to give the impression that my software is suitable for a certain purpose, other than by the messages on the software itself, such as by my mode of promotion, messages I state on websites, etc., that could form an opinion or impression with the public that my software would be suitable for something, and then subsequently, this would not be true.

I can make the example about Mozilla products, but I am not sure it is wise to do so here.

Particularly it means I will not falsely advertise suitability for certain purposes, and then in my license state:

INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE

Which is just a scam. First you say "my program can do this and that and it is amazing" and then you say "oh, but if it fails to do that, I am not liable".

This is called false advertising which is unlawful to begin with, and in Dutch we call it "dwaling" (legal term).

Purposefully, I intend to make my program so good that it will not require support, and if it does require support, I intend to provide it. The free software philosophy apparently means to make crap software, and then void any responsibility for it. I do the opposite: I make something amazing, and then take responsibility for what I do, or have done.

However, what do you think is going to happen if someone forks the program, introduces complexity they cannot support, or guarantee the quality of, leaves "support" to some mailing list or forum, and at the same time, the program is still identifiable, in some way, as my thing?

Now you have to be the asshole to those people saying "sorry, that version is not supported". You will constantly be visited by people asking support for features you did not want.

You will constantly be questioned with such things as "why don't you introduce that feature, that fork has?". "I think you are a lousy developer, fork is better". You know that is going to happen, it happens even now.

Now suddenly you have to defend yourself, because someone else took his product and made it his own, and a wagonload of morons and idiots that mostly use it because they would have relicensed it under GPL, or, if it already was GPL (which is the case here I guess) because it agrees more with their bad design schemes, are now going to constantly assault you to make you look bad in the eyes of other people, as they habitually do and have done with OpenOffice.

Do not think that open source people (or floss people, or whatever) are beyond devious schemes, ego-based competition, and general vileness in combating your product because they compete with it.

They fork it, but they instantly become a competitor. And though often times direct money is not involved, indirectly it always is. There are going to be people offering support contracts for said software. There are going to be people that want to be listed as main authors, to get a better job in the real world. There are going to be people that want to obtain reputation within the FLOSS world, in order to leverage more power, or to be able to make more decisions, or in the end, to monetize their reputation.

So your "fork" is going to try to fight you. Combat you. Vie against you. Compete with you, and do the stuff people do in competitions in order to come out on top.

Then, after they've destroyed you, they will claim that their product is being developed faster than yours. That theirs is the better product. You can see it between OpenOffice and LibreOffice, the vileness that has been espoused, completely. When you say anything good about OpenOffice in public, these days, you become the target of aggression, vile attacks, character assaults, and whatnot more. Yet even Mark Shuttleworth, no matter how much you may dislike him, has shared his opinion on this, even though at the end they assimilated LibreOffice and dumped OpenOffice. Which was also the source of my knowledge on this, and it made perfect sense to me, because that is what I see people do in F(L)OSS. [[ I am going to dump "FLOSS" though, I will just refer to it as FOSS, because what GNU says about the "open source" camp is irrelevant to me. ]]

I do not wish to be the subject of such attacks, and so I will reserve the right of distributing modifications, such that such issues never even arise.

Then, even if people still do it and I cannot defend against that (but no mainstream project ever would) at least I can tell everyone that I did not intend for this and that I am not responsible for what they do with it, and that I consider it theft.

The point will not really be modifying it for your own purpose. The point will be creating a competing product based on my work, time and energy, and efforts, and then using that competing product to destroy me, in essence. That is why I espouse a dislike of GPL. And why, in a general sense, I despise it.

Sorry if this opens up another can of worms, I was not meaning to write this, to begin with, in this way (the just above).

GPL is about the freedom of other people to take your work (steal it) and make it their own.
It does not protect the rights of other people to control their own work. Even though it is considered a copyright license, but a twisted version of it.

In a general sense, it takes away your freedom to make any choices about the work you promote. For example, you craft a table, but you are now no longer allowed to make any choices about that table you just crafted. In principle, if someone manages to invade your home, steal your construction plans, and run off with it, they can now make a competing table that does the same, without ever having had to invest the same time and money in it, in designing it.

So GPL quietly voids a right to a return on investment. It voids the rights to be the sole beneficient of the work you put in yourself, because even though FOSS is usually not about money, in the end money is always involved.

So what GPL really does, in my opinion, is to dissuade spending time on design or development and to promote quick releases that have seen little development because the first one to publish something, gets the credit for it. And it's all about credit here. It is all about ego.

In FOSS, it is all about positioning your product within the landscape so as to become irreplaceable. Then, if no one can get around your software anymore, and you are the one with the fastest development pace (and the most releases) no one could ever fork it in a way that would take away your momentum, because your software keeps seeing releases continually. And then, even though people may dislike your software, seeing that it has already garnered (open source world) support, you have become such a power house that you get to direct the direction of the entirety of Linux (think SystemD). Because in order to "void" you you now have to create a competing product from scratch while no one cares enough to actually do it. You cannot fork SystemD because it is already a monster, the fork would also be a monster. You would have to refactor it completely, split it into components, etc. etc. I can be done perhaps. But it is not the same as forking a well-designed product that can already form the basis for something great. The reason SystemD cannot be forked, is because it is so bad.

So GPL dissuades well thought-out designs. Someone might come and design a crappy product based on your designs, and then release it. Now their release will garner popularity before yours can, because they have spent less time getting to the finish line.

It is not realistic to assume you can completely design it in-house and closed-source, before releasing under GPL, when you still want to cooperate with the open source world.

You want to be able to share your designs and ideas and garner support without other people taking it and running off with it, and then creating their own product based on it, leaving you in the dust, before you have even finished yours. Foremost you want to be the first to publish, and distribute for real. GPL only protects this if you develop closed-source, which means it does not protect it at all. I'm sorry, I am going to cut this short now.

I feel a person should not really have the freedom to destroy someone else or in a general sense I should have the freedom to defend against that. And GPL takes away my freedom.

It takes away any form of "ownership" even though it is nothing more than a form of stewardship, and I want to protect my software as a good steward.

Under GPL, other people can ruin your software, and as a good steward, you would not allow that. I say these things because I care about my software, and others may not.

Anyway, time to quit this. See ya.
dryden
 
Posts: 80
Joined: 2015-02-04 08:54

Re: IRC Mayhem.

Postby dryden » 2016-05-20 12:13

Let me condense and summarize.

GPL is about the freedom to steal other people's work. It is a doctrine of thieves.

It is the ability to sit back, watch someone else spend ample amount of time on the development or construction of something, and then when you consider the time right, take it off their hands and do something with it on your own.

That wouldn't be bad if there was never any form of real world competition involved.

However in reality competition is created, and the original product is going to get assaulted.
dryden
 
Posts: 80
Joined: 2015-02-04 08:54

Re: IRC Mayhem.

Postby oswaldkelso » 2016-05-20 20:52

I've not heard as much bullshit and plain lies about the GPL in over 10 years here, than dryden has somehow managed to put in one thread. Congratulations.

Now If you've written GPL'd code and someone else has forked it and it become more popular than yours. Great! That's the whole ****** point.

I would suggest dryden crawls back under his bridge. If you the original author you still have copyright you can go off with your copyrighted code and make it non-free if you want.. If you put anything like as much effort in to writing code as you do in to your forum posts you will create a new office suit in no time at all. But the thing is no one will care.. Except you maybe.

If anyone wants to know about the GPL go read it for your selves. Very good documentation at https://www.gnu.org/
Ash init durbatulûk, ash init gimbatul,
Ash init thrakatulûk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul.
User avatar
oswaldkelso
 
Posts: 1128
Joined: 2005-07-26 23:20
Location: UK

Re: IRC Mayhem.

Postby Head_on_a_Stick » 2016-05-20 21:34

dryden wrote:Let me condense and summarize.

GPL is about the freedom to steal other people's work. It is a doctrine of thieves.

It is the ability to sit back, watch someone else spend ample amount of time on the development or construction of something, and then when you consider the time right, take it off their hands and do something with it on your own.

That wouldn't be bad if there was never any form of real world competition involved.

However in reality competition is created, and the original product is going to get assaulted.

GPL is about the freedom of the user to control the software they use.

Copylefting prevents any future exploitation of code, this is a beautiful thing :)

If you don't like it, use another licence for your code.

I would hope that eventually *all* software would be licensed under GPL, why would that be a bad thing?
E Pluribus Unix
User avatar
Head_on_a_Stick
 
Posts: 7777
Joined: 2014-06-01 17:46
Location: /dev/chair

Re: IRC Mayhem.

Postby mor » 2016-05-21 09:17

dryden wrote:
Open Source in fact, does not imply the ideology that is pushed on by Free Software and doesn't guarantee from final licenses being proprietary or non completely Free.
While any software to be licensed as Free has to have the source code available, it doesn't mean that the development process of said software had to be of the open source kind before releasing and licensing.

Sure, but in practical terms that distinction is moot.

It is not moot, in fact…

dryden wrote:Of course it does in fact mean that you can "develop closedly" until you release, as you say. And that takes away some concern, but I do not even mean to develop closedly until I release, and what is release? Practically, this would imply not ever showing any public person or venue any of your code, or product, in the meantime? Practically infeasible. Because, any such release would invariably, probably, imply having to meet the terms of the license, even with some temporary, "inofficial" release.

That you're referring to was just an example of a possible scenario. ;)
It only served the purpose of making a practical distinction between something that is a developmental model and something else that is an ideology. It was meant to have you picture a situation where, for example, a developer codes some piece of software alone in his own basement and then makes the code public (he "releases" it) with a Free License, in a case like that "open source" was not the developmental model.
On the other hand, say a company makes the source available on their website for random developers to contribute, but the license prohibits those people from sharing the code further or denies any other freedom that GPL-compatible licenses grant instead, then you would have "open source developmental model", but not Free Software.

So, as you see, the distinction and the point of them being different realms is not moot at all. It is very important indeed. ;)

dryden wrote:The GPL does not talk about releases. It takes about propagation and conveyance, whatever the distinction may be.

So although you would be "protected from theft" as long as you don't "propagate" or "convey" anything, since other people could then only take away from your finished product, that has, at that point, already been released (hopefully). It does imply that any intermediate version that you might show to anyone (in public) can also be copied at will, and if you do this more than once, you entire source will be available under GPL regardless, at various times, and inevitably, in whole, prior to your actual first release date. And of course any subsequent versions would fall in with the same.

That means your development would be hidden but any intermediate milestones would be GPL, and public, and in agreement with those terms, if you have it that way.

Look, you are going too far ahead of yourself on this.

Have you read the documents I suggested?
You are approaching this issue from the wrong angle and it is preventing you from getting how things work, there is a lot of assuming in your reasoning and it is driving you in the wrong direction.
Take a moment or two to breathe and read the FSF site in depth.

But you're not gonna do it because you said it yourself:
dryden wrote:I don't think I need to understand these issues beyond what I already know.

Suit yourself then.

dryden wrote:In general you cannot use documents written by others, or written by yourself at some other time, to make arguments for you as if the reading of such documents would invariably cause agreement with your statements. That is never true, and it is the condescending thing that people often do.

Why not?
Those documents are just more detailed and comprehensive versions of what I already said, they served to corroborate the points I've made as in "I say this, check that document for a longer version".
They do not serve the purpose of convincing anyone, this is not about convincing, rather it is about informing.
But you don't need to have more information than what you already have right?

Hope you find what you are looking for, take care.
User avatar
mor
 
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-08-28 15:16
Location: mor@debian

Re: IRC Mayhem.

Postby edbarx » 2016-05-21 09:33

Do not feed the troll!

Image
Debian == { > 30, 000 packages }; Debian != systemd
The worst infection of all, is a false sense of security!
It is hard to get away from CLI tools.
User avatar
edbarx
 
Posts: 5394
Joined: 2007-07-18 06:19
Location: 35° 50 N, 14 º 35 E

Re: IRC Mayhem.

Postby dryden » 2016-05-21 14:34

oswaldkelso wrote:I've not heard as much bullshit and plain lies about the GPL in over 10 years here, than dryden has somehow managed to put in one thread. Congratulations.


Maybe you are just an idiot who doesn't think for himself. That could also be true.

And now of course people will accuse me of using strong language like that against those kind of people, when I (and my words) have just been called "lies" (liar) and "bullshit".

Much is open to interpretation, and even though someone from FSF might disagree with my choice of wording, he testified that my assumptions on GPL were correct (yes I have been mailing with someone). He agreed that I had the right notion about GPL. Here are his words:

While I disagree with the use of the term greedy to describe the GPL's
effect, you have the right idea about how the GPL functions. The GPL is
what we call a strong copyleft license (other copyleft licenses exist
besides the GPL.) Since a copyleft license requires that derivatives be
distributed under the same license, it is not possible to simultaneously
satisfy the requirements of two different copyleft licenses for a single
work.


That was Yoni Rabkin of the Free Software Foundation.

Now If you've written GPL'd code and someone else has forked it and it become more popular than yours. Great! That's the whole ****** point.


Well that is your opinion. I kindly disagree. But as we see often in the Linux world, disagreement is met with character assaults. In particular, disagreement is seen as being uneducated; that an educated person would never disagree, and that, as such, the mere act of educating someone (or having them read standard texts on the internet) will somehow make them fall in line. This is deeply condescending (and arrogant) to begin with, and I have told so before.

If anyone wants to know about the GPL go read it for your selves. Very good documentation at https://www.gnu.org/


Maybe you should try doing that some time. And then actually thinking about it, too. As professed, I did meticulously read it a few days ago, and everything I have stated subsequently was based on that. So you are also the asshole right now that feels they should put other readers here on the wrong track. Someone who is afraid someone else might get influenced by my words. How proper of you! Oh no, alarm alarm, because the holy GPL is getting desecrated! And if it is so easy to desecrate it, maybe it is not worth much.

These lies you tell... heh. Yes, wonder whom it applies to.


Head_on_a_Stick wrote:GPL is about the freedom of the user to control the software they use.


Nope, it is about the right to create a new distribution out of it, and then profit from it.

GPL is mostly about the distribution of modifications.

In practical terms:
  • That "user" will have to be a developer.
  • Anyone who is not a developer, is at the behest of other developers with their own ideas.
  • Those other developers may have their own political goals, and control their own distribution channels.
  • You are still at the behest of someone else.

So what user actually controls the software they use? It has taken me many years to get to the point where I have first started making real modifications (ie. Grub).

During all of that time, I did not control my system at all. I controlled MS-feaking-DOS to a greater degree than my Linux systems, and that was just something proprietary. I knew how to do wicked stuff on that system (because I was a programmer).

Other people I know reminisce over the days of doing Assembler programming on MS-DOS, because we could do so much with it.

So basically, in some way you claim that I am going to be better off if free software advocates control my software, rather than commercial vendors. I often disagree with that notion, for instance, I consider Opera a superior browser to Firefox and Chrome. But in most cases, it is still going to be other people who control my software.

I mentioned this to Yoni Rabkin when I said that it seems to me free software advocates / programmers / maintainers / controllers use a lot of tactics to dissuade other people from making changes that they, themselves, don't like.

Feel free to have your say on that comment.

Copylefting prevents any future exploitation of code, this is a beautiful thing :)


Sure, I am not going to argue with the sense of appreciation of beauty that other people have.

And I am glad you witness and appreciate a beautiful part of it.

I'm not saying all is bad, and I also told Yoni that maybe we (him and me) might be approaching the same problem from a different angle, seeking really the same solution.

This problem is what he refers to as subjugation.

Feel free to respond to that as well.

Also: a BSD person described GPL as a "legal time bomb". Also, what do you mean by exploitation? If I have a semi-proprietary license / product (open source, modification is allowed as long as I agree with it and it adds to the ecosystem from my perspective) how would that mean I am "exploiting" e.g. the GNU Readline library, if I used it? Would you feel I am "abusing" the writers of that software? What if I even want to pay them for it? (If my product became successful, and it was commercial). What if I want to reward them for their work, but just not. By. Having to. Become. The. Same. Person. Thinking. The Same Things. What if I want to retain my individuality, and my right to choose my own path? Why does "interaction" imply "sameness" for you? Why should I only be allowed to "buy a bread" if I agree with the purposes that the vendor has intended for that bread? Ie. I cannot put cheese on my bread, because the vendor / baker doesn't like cheese. He is now going to have me sign a license agreement that says that I won't put cheese on the bread I obtain from him. THAT is what GPL comes down to!

n contrast to the GPL, which is designed to prevent the proprietary commercialization of Open Source code, the BSD license places minimal restrictions on future behavior. This allows BSD code to remain Open Source or become integrated into commercial solutions, as a project's or company's needs change. In other words, the BSD license does not become a legal time-bomb at any point in the development process.


If you don't like it, use another licence for your code.


Don't tell me what to do, please. I have already told you I am not free to choose my license. The moment. I interact. With something. GPL. Even if I write a kernel module.

I would hope that eventually *all* software would be licensed under GPL, why would that be a bad thing?


Because it takes away people's freedom. To disagree with GPL.

mor wrote:It is not moot, in fact…


You would have to explain why, but as you indicate in the coming section, you say it is moot because you don't believe practical relevance is the issue here, but rather ideological relevance. I said it was moot because in practice it is not an issue for me now here. I am talking about a real life situation, not some hypothetical thing.

That you're referring to was just an example of a possible scenario. ;)


I was hoping you were actually answering practical relevant concerns.

It only served the purpose of making a practical distinction between something that is a developmental model and something else that is an ideology. It was meant to have you picture a situation where, for example, a developer codes some piece of software alone in his own basement and then makes the code public (he "releases" it) with a Free License, in a case like that "open source" was not the developmental model.


I am trying to puzzle back the line of reasoning because I lost my concentration due to a hurting foot. And it sucks to have to reread everything.

My initial statements that Tomazzi responded to were only about GPL. I merely mentioned Open Source as a "world", or as you called it "FLOSS cluster".

When I called it Open Source, I was not talking about anything specifically technical regarding any kind of development model. From my liberal use of this term, you inferred that I must have been mistaken about the distinction. I was not. I used it as a "umbrella term" when I said "Open Source (GPL)". That is because the dynamics I was talking about did not stem from the deviating "combinations" you are trying to elucidate, explain, or 'educate' about me here.

All of your responses are a mere reaction to this combined use of these terms in this loose fashion. You do not respond to actual statements I have made. This guy (Tomazzi) does nothing but respond to the spatial interrelation of two verbatim terms.

In other words, just from the fact that I liberally and loosely tie the two terms together, to refer to the larger "FLOSS cluster", as you correctly infer, you think you can conclude I must be uneducated about the distinction. And I will agree, that I did not imagine beforehand some "odd" combinations that are also possible. Particularly, what I would call "corporate abuse" in that sense of using "open source" as a development model, in order to obtain free work from volunteers, while giving nothing back, now appears to be similar to what I am doing myself. Except for the fact that I am not even doing anything together with anyone, I am the sole developer of my stuff, thus far at least, and possibly for ever.

However, the fact that you make this assumption and inference means you are uneducated at the real "sight" of the dynamics of the open source world. Yes, I again use that term loosely. What gives? Those FSF documents, for instance, profess a disbelief in making any neutral, objective distinctions such as to the use of the words FOSS and FLOSS, because they consider everything "free", and want to make that term mean exactly what THEY WANT and NOTHING ELSE.

Freedom has a lot of other definitions than what the FSF thinks it has, and that was the whole point of what I was saying. Your freedom, is another person's slavery.

So in my use of "Open Source (GPL)" the term "Open Source" (as capitalized) was an amalgam combining both "open source" (development model) and what you would call "free software" (licensing terms).

Had I been of a slightly different persuasion, I might have said "Free Software (GPL)" and you would have made other stupid remarks.

You say to me the distinction matters. Not here and not now. You clearly misunderstood what I have been saying. That is why I responded by saying that in practice all Free Software is also Open Source. I was talking about the dynamics of that "FLOSS cluster", remember?

The distinctions you are making here, and the odd examples, you are giving, clearly are exceptions to the rule, and do not apply to that larger FLOSS cluster, for the most part. So how could they ever (those distinctions) be relevant now here, as to the behaviour of that FLOSS cluster, in which Free Software is ALWAYS Open Source?

You are trying, apparently, to make me talk about stuff other than that FLOSS cluster. As if my statements had been about THAT. No, my statements were only about that "larger FLOSS cluster".

And I did not misunderstand this at all, but you did. This stems, very likely, from this fact that you are not observing the FLOSS cluster as a whole, but from the inside, seeing differences and trying to make distinctions. It is like saying "The Earth is a violent planet" and then you go and say "no, no, you misunderstand, some cultures in Earth espouse violence, but others are very peaceful (in thinking)" as if their persuasions would affect their actual behaviour.

But some cultures on earth may claim to be peaceful, but still act out in violence and war regardless. Do you know what I am trying to say here?

Technical distinctions and philosophical convictions may not matter much if the people acting on that stuff actually do things that are at odds, with those principles.

That is just to say that there can be a reason why you misunderstood me. I see this more often, that people do not really see "what is so" because they focus on details that have no relevance in practice. As to the real outcomes of the system.

They practically make the statement "No, we are not violent, because we believe in peace". You can see how that doesn't follow. Beliefs, and actual behaviour, can be at odds with one another. Many religions say they are one thing, and then do another. It is not different for this thing we are talking about there, although I cannot credibly argue that at this point.

So you are practically arguing that I was wrong about the observations and statements I made about that larger FLOSS cluster (or in any case, the GPL and what it does to the world) simply because you feel those distinctions are so relevant that they would change my observations. However, they do not.

This is because FLOSS people say one thing, and do another.

In practice "Free" and "Open" are a combination, or amalgam. The resulting dynamic, contains both. That is probably why I referred to it as "Open Source (GPL)" in that one statement.

In practical terms, the problem I have with the thieving nature of GPL, is that only is it not hypocritical -- the GPL itself is exempt from GPL, you cannot modify it!! :P. Why don't they just walk the talk and GPL the GPL? :D.

You are supposed to be able to modify everything? Should that not also include the license terms?

Why is the most important part exempt from modification? Does that not mean it is a complete and utter lie?

It is hypocritical to the core. Yes, I know you have your answers. "That is because if we would allow that to be modified, we could no longer guarantee the freedoms". Even that is newspeak. It really means "we could no longer be able to enforce the restrictions".

ANY license is going to be about enforcing stuff, and how is enforcing stuff an act of freedom, correctly?

Enforcing stuff IMPLIES taking the freedom away of another person (that can no longer make an independent choice of his or her own). You try to take choice away because you feel that those choices would impede the rights of other people. Not because it would limit their choices. It would limit their capabilities, opportunities.

And you also feel those rights of those other people, are more important, or supersede, the rights of the individual, in making a .. or wanting to make a different choice. Basically, you hold a (rather enlightened) position that the rights of the few should not supersede or superimpose on the rights of the many.

And traditionally, copyright, of course, has been exactly that: disenfranchising large numbers of people, and even groups, because they could not afford, or gain access to, important works that on the whole, would enlighten the entire society IF they had access to it.

That is why people in general feel that 'proprietariness' or 'greed' is a detriment to society, at least in our world here, we feel that, because the benefits to those few are so slim, and we see that, and those many are so impoverished just to be able to grant those few perks to those few.

And we conclude, and judge, that this balance is wrong, and that this balance results in a much smaller yield than would otherwise have happened if more people had access.

And now some will say: Oh, you have done some good thinking. Oh shut the **** up. This is thinking I did 20 years ago okay. This is not any form of education on your behalf.

It is a misappropriation of who I am and what I stand for. You still feel you are somehow superior beings who now see a sibling being approach their level of greatness. How fooled you are.

How mistaken a person can be.

Anyway I don't have much time for this anymore and I know my argument is ruined in this way. I have already been writing on this one post for hours now. But let me try to respond still:
dryden
 
Posts: 80
Joined: 2015-02-04 08:54

Re: IRC Mayhem.

Postby dryden » 2016-05-21 14:34

It only served the purpose of making a practical distinction between something that is a developmental model and something else that is an ideology. It was meant to have you picture a situation where, for example, a developer codes some piece of software alone in his own basement and then makes the code public (he "releases" it) with a Free License, in a case like that "open source" was not the developmental model.


This purpose was irrelevant in the context of what I said, and now you know it.

I'm not your kind of inferior being that needs to be educated on the principles of what is so. I probably see these things much more clearly than you do, although I often fail to express myself the way I had intended, mostly due to a bad and failing health in some area......

In practice all Free Software projects are open source. And anything that gets published under GPL, gets to be open source, if not for the "development model", then at least for that publication. And every other publication that will subsequently follow it. So. That means that. Everyone will have your source, and sometimes it would be a little outdated. But given that most software projects publish more often, if those milestones are not that far apart, practically speaking, most or all of the source will always be open and available.

So your distinction really is moot here. Most of the FLOSS world agrees with this, and that is what I was talking about. I said that "Free" implies "Open" and this is true for the very much largest part, so as a matter of speaking, anything that deviates from that is going to be insignificant as to the grand scheme of things, because there are hardly any projects in the FLOSS world that follow that model, or none at all.

In anything that actually matters in Linux, and anything you might normally want to use as a form of library, or even ... whatever. It is going to be "Free" software, and if it would be GPL (not LGPL) it sucks to be you. Or me. I was not talking about LGPL or any other "Free" license. Like the BSD license, for instance.

The Modified BSD allows modification and redistribution, it just does not enforce it on the users of the product, like GPL does. I was talking about THAT nature of GPL, not anything else.

So there is even a distinction between "Free Software" and "GPL" because GPL is the most restrictive of the Free Software licenses in that it is that "strong copyleft" thing that expands onto everything it touches.

So the point was entirely moot. All of those things you mention are practically irrelevant, and I was talking about REAL consequences.

  • I was not talking about Free Software as a whole, but only GPL
  • I was not talking about Open Source as a whole, but only GPL
  • I was talking about the enforcing nature of GPL, and nothing else
  • I was talking about the recursive "tainting" nature of GPL, and nothing else
  • I was talking about how people are not free to pick their own license, and nothing else
  • I was talking about how this lack of freedom means GPL is a lie, and it is not about freedom at all.

The freedom I am talking about here is the freedom to pick your own ideology, to pick your own beliefs, and to write them down in a license statement. The freedom to differ, the freedom to deviate, the freedom to abhor, what the GPL is trying to make you do. MAKE YOU DO. COMPLIANCE. ENFORCEMENT. COMPLICIT.

GPL is about compliance, not freedom, obedience by not knowing what else to do. The first and most important choice everyone should make is what they belief in, and GPL takes that freedom away from you.

No matter what I have said above. This does not agree with that. This solution, that you are seeking with this, is not my solution. This is not my strategy. It hurts me. Your strategy hurts me, and I am not some megalominious corporation that makes people suffer left and right. Your fine little license is meant to target those parties, and yet you are hurting me with it. Collateral damage, you might say. I don't feel GPL agrees with the things I have said above.

That enlightened notion, that the many should not suffer at the behest, of some benefits to the few, does not really agree with GPL.

GPL is really a poverty institution, in that sense.

I am not saying it has never done the world much good. I am not saying there are not good parts to it. I'm not saying the world would be better off without it given that there might not be a better replacement. Sometimes something is just a stage in the development of a new idea. You have a culture, a counter culture, and then something that arises out of the combination. Heidegger called this thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. Yes, I know some of my literature. Except that it was Hegel, but I have read both :P.

Yet at this point I will quit writing this, because it sucks.

On the other hand, say a company makes the source available on their website for random developers to contribute, but the license prohibits those people from sharing the code further or denies any other freedom that GPL-compatible licenses grant instead, then you would have "open source developmental model", but not Free Software.


You haven't explained why all code everywhere has this sort of requirement by fundamental nature of the universe, to comply with GPL. If disagreement with GPL is an offense to you to begin with, then okay, but you cannot use that to argue that this is a purely practical distinction. And let's just relate it to my own model, to make it clearer, because I tend to go in the direction of what you describe.

I called it moot I believe because I said free software is going to be open source regardless. I hate to use the words "free software" because to me it implies a lack of freedom to make the choices I want, including the choice of license. THE MOST IMPORTANT CHOICE I am NOT allowed to make. The GPL explicitly FORBIDS someone for choosing their own license. This is what Yoni called "strong copyleft". I will have to dive into that term, but it won't change anything much here. He already explained enough.

So basically the GPL is about freedom as long as you agree with GPL. You do not have the freedom to disagree with GPL. It is like saying a religion is free because you get to choose which denomination within the same religion you are going to follow, but if you actually choose another religion, you get killed. Or ostracised. Excommunicated.

GPL is about excommunicating people from the community, who do not agree with the ideals.

How can you even disagree with that assessment? It is not a value statement, mostly, It is just a statement of fact. You can consider it positive, or you can consider it negative. But it is still what it is. It is still excommunication of people who disagree with the ideals.

Now I already told you beforehand that I am one of those who would develop proprietary or semi-proprietary. Let's call it "some rights reserved". I never misunderstood the distinction you make. So your distinction is moot, because I never argued with that. It is pretty clear my whole issue is with the license to begin with, not the development model (at least not in that sense).

I'm sorry, I failed to read back, my foot hurts and sometimes I am lazy. I didn't open up a new window to read back your words before writing this.

I called it moot because I was not talking about such companies as you refer to. My mind was on the basic tenets of the FLOSS world itself. That idea that you can someone abuse the "community" to give you free code, as a company, without paying them, and by taking the work they do for your selfish means and gains, is to me rather disingenuous. Perhaps, in some relevant realm, that distinction is not moot, but let's not talk about that.

Corporations themselves are not the epitome of natural human behaviour.

I am concerned with the behaviour of the FLOSS world itself. When I said "in practical terms" I was referring to that fact that for them, open source is always free, and, moreover, free software is always open source. And I think it is clear that I wouldn't be talking about this if I didn't see the distinction, because to me, I want to be open source for the largest part while using a different license (of my own).

But I lost track of what I was saying, and I guess you could say I lost my nerve here. Lost my concentration... (Yes, I have a swollen foot here ;-)).

So, as you see, the distinction and the point of them being different realms is not moot at all. It is very important indeed. ;)


But for whom? I only interact with the FLOSS world in which they are identical, or always go hand in hand. You are trying to argue the difference or distinction is important from the perspective that GPL is important. Your argument seems to imply then, that, because the distinction is important, GPL is also important. But that doesn't follow. I would hold that the distinction is important because GPL is a bitch, and even though I want to be open source, I cannot choose my own license (if I make software that interoperates with Linux). Let me just check the license for nCurses for instance.

It is not even LGPL. It has its own license. Phew. *Wipes sweat off his brow* :p.

I will probably write my own Readline lib anyway.

So please explain to me again why the distinction is important, if you already know that was the reason for me to say these very things. (Do you also tell people to start jogging when they are already doing so?) Perhaps then I may regain my mind here. Kindly thank you :p.

Look, you are going too far ahead of yourself on this.


You have no right to be telling me this.

Have you read the documents I suggested?


I am not sure if you have. If you have, then please kindly state what parts of them you considered relevant for me, so we can actually discuss something in common terms, and not about some unmentioned line of reasoning that may have mentioned a dozen different ones (points).

You are approaching this issue from the wrong angle and it is preventing you from getting how things work, there is a lot of assuming in your reasoning and it is driving you in the wrong direction.


You have no right to be saying these things. There are no "wrong angles" there are only angles YOU disagree with. Please do not be so condescending. I am not here to be tutored by you, okay? I am not your student here. I am your bitch :p.

At least I just became it when I lost my conc.

If you have anything sensible to say, you can say them, but please don't just keep alluding to some sense of sensibility you say exists in some other universe, and that is so omnipresently good that you don't even have to mention what it is about.

I am saying you are not actually saying anything here. There is no content to your words. They are empty. If there is something wrong with my angle, then improve it, or at least, say what you think is wrong about it. Don't just say "it is wrong". Don't pretend to be some teacher that doesn't even have to explain himself.

What you said here had no merit. You have to make actual arguments, not allude to their existence somewhere.

Take a moment or two to breathe and read the FSF site in depth.


Can you please stop that crap? I am not your student, and I have no reason to read your documents that you only post because you have no actual arguments to make of your own.

And I actually did read some of them and posted parts of them that I responded to. So you can stop the disingenuity here. I actually DISAGREE with what it says, and you don't have to pretend you are so good that you can know my disagreement stems from "not having read them". Do you ever realize that people have a right to disagree? Jesus, asshole really. Pretending you are better than other people because you have read more documents, or you have more links to paste. Sorry, but that's what is is. That makes you an asshole.

So many people on the internet do that, even on YouTube. They post some Wikipedia link, from the conception that I (or anyone else) must not have read that or that person would not have made that statement (or written that piece). And it sucks to be you, because you are always wrong. Those people are always wrong. In 90% of cases, you would already have read that document. And then that person would say "Read it again." No, I am not your slave. Go screw yourself somewhere else, not in my yard.

Unwitting and ignorant and arrogant people who think their knowledge of the existence, or contents thereof, of some Wikipedia document, and their ability to paste such links, instantly makes them the superior thinker.

"I have an encyclopedia in my home, so I am the smarter person. My daddy bought it for me". Really.

Your links amount to nothing unless you can explain them. And I'm sorry, I would have given you much clearer answers with less swearing (probably :p) if I hadn't lost my line of reasoning back there.

My foot is hurting and I need to get back to that hospital :p. But I can't. Anyway, sucks to be me I guess.

But you're not gonna do it because you said it yourself:


You're not telling me what to do here okay. If you have arguments you can relate them here. Don't point me to arguments that other people never made.

Suit yourself then.


Again, you are not my teacher here. If anything, you are the student. You profess a lack of understanding of what the GPL is actually about, and what it does. As I already professed, a guy from the Free Software Foundation told me I actually had the right idea about what GPL does and how it operates. And then you point me to documents that you do not fully understand. Get off my track then.

Why not?
Those documents are just more detailed and comprehensive versions of what I already said, they served to corroborate the points I've made as in "I say this, check that document for a longer version".
They do not serve the purpose of convincing anyone, this is not about convincing, rather it is about informing.
But you don't need to have more information than what you already have right?


An informative resource cannot indicate attitudes or interpretations as to that information.

That is like saying, that when I say "I hate the sun, it always burns my skin" you point me to a document that says "Sunlight in general is healthy for the human body" as if by that act you would have proven to me that my dislike of sunlight is "wrong".

I know full well what the GPL is about and what you don't understand is that I disagree with it while understanding it (better than you do).

I could hold quizzes and you would not have all the answers. I am a triple A student, in that sense, okay? My reading comprehension has always been off the charts. What good do you think you can do? I was the best student in my home town of about 30.000 people. Three different teachers gave me prizes or recommendations, or expressed extreme confidence in me. With regards to subsequent education/career success. My friends from university are assistant-professors. One of my best friends from back then is a world champion in ****** bridge. What good do you think you can do? :P.

What you fail to understand is that your intent here is not just to inform me, you are trying to convince me, and then you say you are doing the opposite. So you are not even aware of what you are doing. You are not educating. You are in it for changing my opinion. All of you are, or (most of you) wouldn't be so aggressive when someone just makes some statements of opinion and dislike here.

You think awareness of those FSF documents would automatically convert someone to your faith. But previously, some other idiot here thought awareness of the actual text of the GPL would do so, by itself. Kinda failed, didn't it? Now you point me to more documents? And what then, even more documents? Your proposition that reading the GPL would convince me, kinda fell flat on its face, didn't it?

In fact, it even made me more informed to support my opinions.

It made my opinions stronger, not weaker. Call me the idiot then. Because I sometimes fail to express myself fully, and you get the wrong idea.

That person, by the way, is now only recommending other people to read the GPL. Cause "the effect of it" on me was wasted, from his perspective, I guess. Guess what: someone can fully understand that the GPL is and does, and how it works, and operates, and still call it crap.

Which leads me to believe you people do not understand what it is, at all. I could educate you, you know?

Yes, that is the real situation. YOU are the uneducated ones. Your reading comprehension, and ability to observe the world around you, kindly fails.

Hope you find what you are looking for, take care.


Right. It would actually help if you took my words seriously, instead of taking for granted that I must be some stumped idiot you will need to educate. As I said, please show me your credentials, before you break down on mine, in that sense.

edbarx wrote:Do not feed the troll!

<img>


It is so cute how the ones that claim to be beyond trolling, apparently, are always the ones that will try to disrupt the thread, or discussion, with, in this case, huge images.

Any sane moderator would at that point say "Hey, don't do that, that is not necessary".

In Dutch we say "Zoals de waard is, vertrouwt hij zijn gasten." It means that the one who makes accusations, is often a person that would perpetrate the same. It literally means, however, that any host who doesn't trust his guests, is not to be trusted himself. The saying applies to accusations of petty theft, etc. In this case it applies to the people who generally yell TROLL are often trolls themselves. Sorry if I can't really explain. But the evil you see in me, is in you.
dryden
 
Posts: 80
Joined: 2015-02-04 08:54

Re: IRC Mayhem.

Postby dryden » 2016-05-21 14:41

I am sorry about the extreme length of that piece.

Errors such as these could cause me to lose my house (I did the same in a civil case, but it is not really right to say that "I" did it, my brain did, not me).

I have a rather unhealthy brain yes. I may try to edit it still (especially the first piece) to condense it but I just posted it anyway. Regards.
dryden
 
Posts: 80
Joined: 2015-02-04 08:54

Re: IRC Mayhem.

Postby GarryRicketson » 2016-05-21 15:04

by dryden »
You have no right to be saying these things.

by dryden »You have no right to be telling me this.

Oh I see, now, the OP has the right to post all these rants, but nobody else has the right
to speak out ????

by dryden »Any sane moderator would at that point say "Hey, don't do that, that is not necessary".

Any sane moderator would ban this guy and close the thread, it is going no where.

from:Forum guidelines. Please read before first post!
6.Do not engage in flame wars. Threads that evolve into flaming will be locked. If you feel attacked; be the better person and ignore it. The moderators are not omnipresent, so if you feel some actions need to be taken please e-mail the moderator team on team@forums.debian.net
12. Summary
The following might get your post EDITED:
- Profanities
- Links to inappropriate websites

The following might get your post/ thread LOCKED
- Flaming/ personal attacks
- Obvious trolling
- Thread has wandered way off topic
- Cross posting

The following might get your post REMOVED
- Advertising/ Spamming
- Obviously racist/ sexist/ hateful content
- Obviously political/ religious content
- Obvious pornographic content


by dryden »Can you please stop that crap? I am not your student, and I have no reason to read your documents that you only post because you have no actual arguments to make of your own.

You don't want to read, or listen to what others say, or have said, but you expect us to read you overly long rants, the same applies, we have no reason to read these rants.
Why don't you start a blog, and post all this junk there ?
You know nobody would read them. It is obvious why the OP was banned from the IRC.
---------------------------- edit --------------------------
Re: IRC Mayhem.
Postby dryden » 2016-05-21 08:34
-------snip-----------
I am saying you are not actually saying anything here. There is no content to your words. They are empty. If there is something wrong with my angle, then improve it, or at least, say what you think is wrong about it. Don't just say "it is wrong". Don't pretend to be some teacher that doesn't even have to explain himself.------snip--------

The OP is basically just talking to their self,
""I am saying you are not actually saying anything here. There is no content to your words. They are empty. If there is something wrong with my angle, then improve it, or at least, say what you think is wrong about it."" exactly,
I am saying you are not actually saying anything here, there is no content to your words, they are just rants, and empty , that is what is wrong with it.
Last edited by GarryRicketson on 2016-05-21 15:13, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
GarryRicketson
 
Posts: 4956
Joined: 2015-01-20 22:16
Location: Durango, Mexico

Re: IRC Mayhem.

Postby dryden » 2016-05-21 15:05

Want to re-respond to a few statements:

Now If you've written GPL'd code and someone else has forked it and it become more popular than yours. Great! That's the whole ****** point.


That is almost the equivalent of someone making a painting, someone else taking it off your hands, and then selling it on your behalf, but taking all the money himself.

Some people actually try to make money on the stuff they do, in the way of selling it, instead of doing that for a living with some employer.

If anyone wants to know about the GPL go read it for your selves. Very good documentation at https://www.gnu.org/


First he tells me to read it, and when that doesn't work (because I did spend several hours studying it and gosh, it only strengthened my awareness and position) he tells others to read it because he knows that most won't, and if they do, they might not have the intelligence to find out what it is really about.

Kinda unreasonable and unfair and of a lying nature, isn't it?

Proved you wrong and now you hope no one will read my words.

GPL is about the freedom of the user to control the software they use.


Freedom implies that otherwise people would try to prevent you from doing that, for instance by law. A anti-circumvention law, or, anti-decompilation law, could, for instance agree with that statement.

So you are claiming that this is some kind of law-based thing.

However in practical terms it is just about the availability of source code, and hence, about practical ways of modifying the software. In most terms, it is about ability, not freedom.

After all, in many or most cases, a person would already be free to do it. But just unable to.

I don't disagree with the hate against e.g. secure boot.

But GPL is not about freedom (of choice) mostly, although there are legal concerns that could otherwise surface. GPL is mostly about being in the position to effectuate the choices you'd want. It is like I have the "freedom" to fly to the sky, but I can't do it unless I grow wings. GPL serves to provide the wings, not the "freedom". So I would say you are kindly mistaken about what GPL does.

Even the fact that it talks about "freedoms". Freedom is a word in the English language that does not have a plural form.

That thing you are talking about is liberties, not freedoms.

See how mistaken you are all? Even such little tenets or facets don't make up. It doesn't even speak English, that thing. The next thing is those numberings starting from 0. No sane person would ever start counting from 0, and those numbers are not indexes in some array. 0-based indexing makes sense only as offsets, and those numbers are not offsets, they are counters, numbers.

That list should be a very normal 1, 2, 3, 4. It is things such as these that make it very hard to take the GPL or the FSF seriously, at all.

They don't talk English and they don't know how to count. Trust your life on that, people.
Last edited by dryden on 2016-05-21 15:13, edited 1 time in total.
dryden
 
Posts: 80
Joined: 2015-02-04 08:54

Re: IRC Mayhem.

Postby dryden » 2016-05-21 15:06

GarryRicketson wrote:
by dryden »
You have no right to be saying these things.

by dryden »You have no right to be telling me this.

Oh I see, now, the OP has the right to post all these rants, but nobody else has the right
to speak out ????


Like I said, I'm not even really speaking to you. You don't understand crap, and are probably the most negative person on this forum. It is not worth even going into debate with you.

To be honest.
dryden
 
Posts: 80
Joined: 2015-02-04 08:54

Re: IRC Mayhem.

Postby dryden » 2016-05-21 15:22

But just in case you wonder.

It is not about the right to speak out.

It is about the right to tell other people that their opinion is wrong, that they are having the wrong thought, taking the wrong angle, having the wrong opinions, the wrong opinions, the wrong opinions.

No one has the right to say that another's opinion is wrong, not even me ;-), because an opinion cannot be wrong, it is someone's opinion.

I mean how uneducated can you get? How can you ever profess that a way of thinking is wrong? That a way of speaking is wrong? That a way of doing things is wrong?

How can you ever say that it is "wrong" to cut bread with a fork? How can you ever say it is "wrong" to make love at night? And not during the day? Or not inside? Or not outside?

How can you ever say that looking at a painting from below is the "wrong" angle? What if you wanted to look at it from behind? Would that the the wrong angle?

All of what you do, most of you, is professing that other people have it wrong, but not just that they "have" it wrong, but that they "are" wrong, in that sense of being wrong, of being immorally unsound.

Wrong in the English language means two different things. It means moral deficiency, and it means factual incorrectness.

In this case, people are constantly using it in terms of moral deficiency.

A solution to a puzzle can be wrong, but a way of looking cannot be wrong, a way of behaving cannot be wrong. It cannot be factually incorrect. You may say it could be morally deficient, but that is exactly what I object against.

I object to the saying that my way of looking at GPL is morally deficient.

So please.
dryden
 
Posts: 80
Joined: 2015-02-04 08:54

Re: IRC Mayhem.

Postby GarryRicketson » 2016-05-21 16:00

Yea, ok I know what you mean man. You are right and everybody else is wrong.


dryden> Like I said, I'm not even really speaking to you. You don't understand crap, and are probably the most negative person on this forum.


It is a public forum, your posts are "speaking" to everybody.
You don't understand crap,
Yes I do,
that is what I put into the toilet and then flush, so it goes down to the sewer, where it belongs.
But any way, you are right, and it is clear the rest of the world is wrong, any body that does not like what you write, and comments , would obviously be considered the most negative person, on the forum.
But any way, I really feel sorry for you, and others like you. You are not unique.
I do agree, on this though, ""It is not worth even going into debate with you.""
It is just a waste of time. However there are some people that find it humorous and entertaining. So have fun.
-------------------------- edit -------------------------
myself> But any way, I really feel sorry for you, and others like you.

Why do I feel sorry for people like you ?
Because it seems like they can not learn from their mistakes, they keep making the same mistakes over and over, but when ever any one tries to show them that they are not perfect, and do make mistakes, just like all the rest of us,..they get all worked up and start crying about how wrong the world is, , and they never can understand why they get banned from public forums and IRC chat sites, they never can understand why they end locked up in a cage, they never understand how and why they end up where they are, and can not figure out a way out. It really is sad, there is a way out. But it seems they never will be able to see it, nor accept the "key" when it is offered.
=================================================================
As far as the GPL licensing issue, to me that is a non issue, I do not need a "license" to write and us any code or program I want to make, I can write my own code use it like I want, if I do want to sell it, I can, there is no need for any kind of license to do that.
If I don't want to share it, or sell it to someone else , that wants to "license" it in some way, that is my right, I do not have to do that. The whole "licensing" scams, and complicated legal aspects is something layers invent , so they have a way to make lots of money off the work that others do, it is all just a gimmick to get people to pay them.
===================================================================
Last edited by GarryRicketson on 2016-05-21 16:45, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
GarryRicketson
 
Posts: 4956
Joined: 2015-01-20 22:16
Location: Durango, Mexico

Re: IRC Mayhem.

Postby arochester » 2016-05-21 16:03

No one has the right to say that another's opinion is wrong, not even me ;-), because an opinion cannot be wrong, it is someone's opinion.


My opinion, which cannot be wrong, is that this thread is about 2 inches from being locked.

As GaryRicketson quoted
The following might get your post/ thread LOCKED
- Flaming/ personal attacks
- Obvious trolling
- Thread has wandered way off topic
- Cross posting


Flaming
Flaming is a hostile and insulting interaction between Internet users, often involving the use of profanity. It can also be the swapping of insults back and forth or with many groups teaming up on a single victim. Flaming usually occurs in the social context of an Internet forum, Internet Relay Chat (IRC), Usenet, by e-mail, game servers such as Xbox Live or PlayStation Network, and on video-sharing websites such as YouTube. It is frequently the result of the discussion of heated real-world issues such as politics, religion, and philosophy, or of issues that polarize sub-populations, but can also be provoked by seemingly trivial differences.

Deliberate flaming, as opposed to flaming as a result of emotional discussions, is carried out by individuals known as flamers, who are specifically motivated to incite flaming. These users specialize in flaming and target specific aspects of a controversial conversation. In a modern Internet lexicon this term has been almost entirely superseded by trolling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming_(Internet)

Trolling
In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

My opinion, which cannot be wrong, is that this Thread has wandered way off topic.

My opinion, which cannot be wrong, is that there are 3 out of 4 reasons to lock this post.
arochester
 
Posts: 1283
Joined: 2010-12-07 19:55

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

fashionable