[Asterisk-Users] Re: Digium Website Update: Asterisk Business Edition

[trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com]

On Mon, 2005-06-13 at 18:20 +0200, Esben Stien wrote:
> "trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com" <trixter at 0xdecafbad.com> writes:
> 
> > Protecting freedoms by putting limits on (thus restricting
> > freedoms).  Interesting concept.
> 
> I need to repeat here. The gpl's purpose is to protect the freedoms
> that comes with free software. So, you have only the freedoms that
> comes with free software as defined by the FSF. You are not allowed to
> do what you like. You are constrained to the freedoms that follows the
> software and I think that is a very interesting concept.
> 

Its not a freedom if its a limit.  That is my point.  The GPL doesnt
give freedoms it takes them away by putting limits on other peoples
code, not the original authors.  Now if the author is ok with infringing
on the rights of others then the GPL is a good choice, however if the
original author is truely fore freedom in the code process, not the
double speak freedom that FSF talks about (where freedom means taking
away abilities) then they should not follow like sheep and repeat what
the FSF says (which on its face is an outright lie since its not freedom
that it grants).


> > copyright and license to use are different.
> 
> I never claimed otherwise. 

If you were the person that was quoting the FSF as fact then you did.
Too bad it got cut out, but you can always go back to the original post
that was claiming freedom means putting limits on people other than
yourself.


> 
> > You can technically put software out there with no copyright but
> > under the gpl license
> 
> Then there would be no one to enforce the license, which would be bad.
> 

Why do you cut out what I said when I addressed that point?  I am
begining to think that you are doing it intentionally now.


> > it only restricts *their* code (ie modifications).  
> 
> Yes, but we also want all modifications to be free
> 

'we' or you specifically?  We is quite a loaded word.  The FSF makes a
false claim that it *protects* freedoms, when all it does is limit the
freedoms of others to write code.  Specifically if I take a program and
modify it, the original is still under whatever license I got it in, but
*my* code, the modifications are MINE not the original authors.  The
original author has NO right to claim that it is their work, nor do they
have copyright on *my* code.  But by releasing it under a GPL they can
force me to use a license that I may not agree with.  This is the reason
that I dont contribute to GPL products, I dont like the idea of someone
else dictating to me how I will distribute *my* code.  

The default GPL makes it a lciense violation to run GPL code on a
commercial (or even BSD) system.  Extra stuff has to be put into the GPL
license to say 'its ok if you link this against non GPL libraries and
such'.  That is not the default, so technically unless someone did that
putting a stock GPL license has other limitations on its mere use.  At
least historically libc on aix, hpux, sunos (4/5), irix were all not GPL
libc (I dont know with solaris now they added a bunch of gpl stuff at
one point).  If any of the GPL licensed software did not take an overt
action to say its ok to run it on those operating systems then its a
license violation.  

That level of selective enforcement also calls into question the legal
standing of the license (if certain sections are not enforced the whole
agreement can be voided on first court challenge).

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCLinkingOverControlledInterface
for linking proprietary code to libraries - overt actions required to
make it work right

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCGPLCommercially
for reading up on how the license affects others who write code later

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCGPLIncompatibleAlone
for reading on how you cant really link against libc on a commercial
operating system (or anything with a license that is not compatible with
the GPL, which BSD isnt becuase it allows someone to take it, write
*their own* code in addition to it and not give *their own* code out.
Thus by default you cant run GPL software on a BSD licensed system, nor
any commercial system *unless* the developer took an overt action to say
this is ok (default GPL it is not ok).

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCDistributeWithSourceOnInternet
for the lack of personal privacy that the GPL forces on those that
choose to release under it, specifically you *must* (section 3) provide
a mailing address.  If you value your privacy and dont want everyone to
have your address you must pay extra to get a po box so that you, as the
author of the software, can comply with section 3 of the GPL - providing
copies by mailorder on physical media.  This is *required* not optional.

The list goes on...


> > the cost of restricting freedoms on others and what they can do
> > with their code
> 
> Yes, by using the GPL you restrict everyone to the four freedoms
> defined in the free software definition. This is exactly what we want.
> 

Again with the 'we'.  Personally I only speak for myself, but I do
notice that you again truncated what I was saying especially the
clarification of "their code" namely not the copyright holder, but lets
say I download some GPL software and code some stuff for it.  I then
give it to one friend, technically I am distributing it, and thus have
to give away all *MY* code under the GPL.  So if you really do mean that
you want everyone to do it 'your' way or no way at all, then yes I agree
that is all the GPL does.  It protects nothing, especially with the
legally questionable practice of 'selective enforcement' which has the
power to nullify the GPL in its entirety, but more importantly, it just
creates a lack of freedom for developers.


> > The BSD license for example lets your code remain free while giving
> > people the freedom to create code of their own, as a modification of
> > yours, and use their code how they want.
> 
> This is exactly the reason I choose GPL, because it doesn't allow
> people to do whatever they want. They only have the freedoms that
> comes with free software, which is exactly what we want. This ensures
> that the code stays free and any modification too it is also
> free. This is what we want and you obviously want something else.
> 

That *MY* code?  Or were you too busy deleting my explanations that its
*MY* code that I am concerned with not yours.  If I write code I should
be able to choose how I release it, not you.  My code is mine, not
yours.  My code was written by me, not you.  My code is copyrighted by
myself, not you.  My code should come with the freedom to release it how
I want, after all it is my property, or is it?

I want the freedom of *choice*.  The ability to *choose* how *I* release
*my* code.  Nothing more.  You seem to think that if people have choice
then the world will end, and that choice is exactly what the GPL fights
against.  You keep saying that is what 'we' want, so it must be true,
whomever 'we' happens to be.  

I said this before, but you deleted it and acted like I never said it so
here goes again..  Your code would remain as free as you choose to make
it.  My code, which potentially is not yet written, should be my choice
to decide how free I want to make it.  The GPL does not protect the
freedom of your code, all it does is restrict the freedom of *my* code.
If you choose to give the code away free, even without a license, just a
copyright, it would remain as free as you want it.  It would be as
protected under the copyright law as it is under the GPL.  GPL does not
add anything to the protection of your code in that regard.  However by
choosing to believe in freedom and choice and not going with a license
that has the stated goal of limiting freedom and choice (ie the GPL) of
a class of people they aparently do not like and do not care for (ie
developers) you restrict the freedom and choice of *my* code, which is
under my copyright and my ownership.


> When we, the saints of the church of emacs, speaks about free software
> we are referring to the freedoms that comes with free software
> (nothing more, nothing less). Free software has a definite definition
> for us, which is that of the fsf.
> 

Yes free from all but choice of developers.  Damn those devlopers lets
do away with them then the world will be better!!  All that will remain
are the brainwashed people who think that freedom means restricting
choice.


> > If people want your version they can always get that from you, and
> > so it is intact as 'free'.
> 
> Yes, but we also want the modifications to the software to be free. We
> basically want what's defined in the GPL.
> 

Ahh so now it *finally* comes out.  You want my code to be licensed
under what you feel is appropriate.  You want my code as if it were your
own.  You want control over me as a devleoper by taking away my choices
as a developer.  


> > It does not give full unrestricted modification clauses.  
> 
> You can modify it as much as you want as long as the modifications
> also are free, just as the original code.
> 

Yes those modifications are *MY* property, my code, my work, and under
my copyright.  By removing my choices as to how I choose to deal with my
code, the work I personally put into something, that is your idea of
freedom?  Where is the freedom to me personally to license my code the
way I want to?

> > Your version which you released 'free' would still be there.  In its
> > unmodified glory.
> 
> By using the GPL, we also ensure that any modification to it, be
> free. This is desired.
> 

Yes you keep saying that it is desired that choice be removed.  That
freedom to select a license of the authors choosing is specifically not
desired.  That freedom and choice are not what the FSF is all about
(according to stallman its about soliciting money becuase he was going
broke when people stopped buying his tapes of emacs for $150, its all
about the money (to him personally).  Why gpl 3.0 is talking about
*charging* people to use GPLed code (lets see who the check gets written
to, I put my money on the FSF collecting - after all they want people
and infact encourage that people sign over the copyright to the FSF
which means that in many instances they would be the *only* ones that
could be paid..  Interesting set of events...


> > The GPL does not ensure freedom to all
> 
> It ensures the freedoms that are defined in the free software
> definition.
> 

Yes freedoms to everyone but future developers.  I see, damn those
developers we could make the world a better place without them!

Btw why dont you get a new response?  All out of quotes from gnu.org?


> > it works like a parasite and infects future code 
> 
> Yes, this parasitic effect is exactly what we want. 
> 

This is getting boring, it was fun to show how foolish the gpl is, how
costly it can be to poorer devleopers, and how silly it can be with its
selective enforcement but you arent even trying to get new quotes from
the FSF.

Although I do find it intersting that you admit that the whole point of
the FSF is to infect the software development world like a parasite
ensuring that people get sick of it and decide they no longer want to
use it.  


> > All it does is force others who write code to be assimilated into the
> > same doctrine.  
> 
> Yes, which is exactly what we want. If you choose to use GPL code, you
> have to follow the rules.
> 

Actually that is debatable, and in about 3-6 months I will have some
time on my hands and plan on challenging the GPL under selective
enforcement and getting it tossed out in court.  That should end this
silly thread.  All I have to do is find every GPL license that doesnt
specifically allow use on commercial operating systems or other non GPL
licensed free systems ...  shouldnt be too hard since most people are so
brainwashed by the FSF/GPL they dont even read it to see what they have
to do.  That might even be fun.


> > I guess what I am trying to say is that GPL does little to protect the
> > original author
> 
> The copyright protects the original author by law. 
> 

Right, that was my whole point, why did you cut out the part where I
said that?  I am now convinced you are doing that intentionally.  Too
many times have you omited what I said just to get your comment in.

I guess that is 'desired' as you have been stating that the GPL does not
protect hte original author.  As such It does not protect freedom of
code at all, since the original author controls that.  All it does is
restrict freedoms. 


> > it removes freedoms from subsequent authors by forcing them to
> > license in the same way.
> 
> Yes, and that's what I love about free software. The software stays
> free.
> 

Are you really this dense or are you so brainwashed that you cant grasp
the fact that if it werent for other licenses you most likely wouldnt
have what you have right now.


> > it doesnt guarantee the freedom of subsequent authors, it curtails
> > that freedom.
> 
> Once again, it only guarantee freedoms that follow free software. 
> 

Yes, doesnt protect the author of the software, infringes freedomes from
all who get the software.  You have said that.  Many times infact.


> > And you can copyright (and infact do) without the GPL.
> 
> Yes, but we use the gpl to protect the freedoms that follows free software. 
> 

That isnt what you were saying before.  You said that it doesnt protect
the original author, nor does it guarantee that the code is infact kept
free, why the GPL 3.0 is talking about charging people who modify the
code in house and dont distro it.  So even if you do not distro the code
it appears that isnt good enough.  Maybe its just that I am not a
communist hippie type who believes that the information wants to be free
(information cant want anything).

Why is it that free software needs all this extra protection?  I dont
think its inferior to other code, so I dont think it needs extra
protection.  Why is it that you feel so strongly that free software is
inferior?



> > The GPL is *not* a copyright it is a license for use.  They are very
> > different things.  You can copyright something and distro it without
> > GPLing it.  
> 
> Indeed. 
> 

Why did you say that it was a copyright?  You cut that part out (again,
sigh) but you did say it was the same thing.  You really should learn to
read before you click send.  


> > it does however curtail the freedoms of any subsequent authors that
> > enhance the code.
> 
> Which again, it's the desired effect. 
> 

Ahh you admit that the point of the GPL is to curtail freedom not grant
it.  I see..  it doesnt protect the author, it doesnt grant freedoms, it
inhibits them.  That is the desired effect, you have said that many
times now.


> > subsequent authors now have *no* choice in how they license it, they
> > are forced to license it the same way as you, which curtails
> > freedom.
> 
> Yes, glad you understand cause this is the purpose. The freedoms that
> follow free software will continue to follow it and neither you nor
> anyone else can change that.
> 

Ahh yes here it is again, you are further confirming under no uncertain
terms that it protects nothing, but infringes on freedoms of others.  I
see.  

But I plan on changing it due to certain terms that are yet unchallenged
with the GPL.  Infact I plan on flaunting it so that someone sues me and
we can put this to end once and for all.  Should be in 3-6 months when I
have a little more time.  Hopefully someone does sue me (I bet no one
does because they know they will lose and the GPL will be void).


> > The modifications are the *only* difference between what you release and
> > what they release, so if they use your code as a base and make changes
> > to suit a particular need, their code, which they did write all of,
> > cannot be licensed how they choose
> 
> This is exactly what we want. 
> 
> > the parasitic nature of the GPL means that their modifications,
> > *their* code, must also be GPLed
> 
> You're just explaining what we want. 
> 

Yes I kept saying that the GPL protects nothing and infringes on
freedoms.  Glad that is what you are finally admitting too.  Maybe the
webpage should be updated to clearly state this is the goal instead of
lying to people about what the goal is.


> > The GPL doesnt protect freedom, it curtails freedom of future
> > developers.
> 
> The GPL protects the freedoms that comes with free software. 
> 

But you just said it doesnt.  Now either you are lying or just maknig
stuff up to take an opposite approach to me.  It does not protect
anything, it does however infringe upon freedoms of developers (and
largely only developers).


> More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of
> the software:
> 
>     * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose.
>     * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your 
>     needs. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
only for the weak.  Learn good development and you wont need it.

>     * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor.
Ahh if only it were a freedom instead of a requirement.

>     * The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements 
>     to the public, so that the whole community benefits. Access to the 
>     source code is also a precondition for this. 
> 
That isnt a freedom, that is the infringement of a freedom.  I should
not be forced to give up my property, namely my code becuase you said
so.

> > Commercial development? 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with selling free software 
> 
I am sorrt you cut out everything I said (again) and quoted me out of
context (again).  I am thinking this is on purpose for anything you
didnt have a webpage cut and paste for.


> Commercial software is software being developed by a business which
> aims to make money from a use of the software. Commercial and
> proprietary software are not the same thing. Most commercial software
> is proprietary, but there is commercial free software and there is
> non-commercial non-free software
> 

Right and if the author chooses to license it under the BSD license or
hell even the apache license, or hmm lets see any commercial license.
Gee infact the FSF states any non GPL license then without overt actions
by the author you violate the license by installing that 'free'
software.

So you should add the freedom to run any operating system that is GPLed,
so long as you run no other.  That isnt always a choice, but that is
what is desired, yes you have said that many times.



> > and thus reduction in IP rights for any company that uses it.
> > Again, while this goes against the FSF's mantra it *does*
> 
> I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. Please elaborate.
> 

You cut out so much of what I was saying, and at this point I really
dont feel like pulling my old email, you certainly didnt pull your old
one when you cut out my responses to you (intact and in context, unlike
how you treated me, but then I have always felt that I should treat
people better than how they treat me).  


> > curtail rights of future developers in forcing them to use a
> > speciifc license for *their* code (ie modifications).  The original
> > authors code would be as free as they choose to make it.
> 
> You're just repeating yourself and I'm doing the same in saying this
> is what we want.
> 
> You may disagree, but I certainly see things this way. 
> 

Gald you are so brainwashed that you cant see the forest for the trees.
Had you actually come up with reasonable things I would not think of you
that way, however all you can do is quote the FSF in response to my
comments, which you conviently quoted out of context and not even
complete quotes.  My guess is that the whole statement was too hard for
you to respond to so you have to edit my comments so that you could
respond with the pat answers rather than have a real opinion of your
own.


I sometimes choose to run a non GPL operating system. that should be my
choice, my freedom to choose.  However what is desired (as you have said
many times) the FSF does not see it that way.  The FSF sees that you
should run only a GPL license or get special permission to use GPL code
on it.  That is not acceptable to many people, infact I would be
suprised if many people even know of that restriction (link provided
above).  I sometimes choose to run some non GPL software that interacts
with GPL software, and the FSF takes a dim view of that as well.  Note
they dont say 'free software' when putting that restriction in they say
nonGPL.  Its not about free software, its about forcing everyone into
the same mold, one that does not always fit.

I must thank you, had it not been for this email I would not have been
inspired to go after the selective enforcement issue of the GPL and do
everything I can to try to get sued (of course not sueing is just as
bad) for violating the GPL by *gasp* installing it on BSD (specific
apps, I will pick the ones I feel are best for this purpose) and then
have the GPL tossed out in court.

Selective enforcement is a bad thing, legally speaking.  If you dont
protect your assets the court sees to it that you have none to protect.


-- 
Trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com     Bret McDanel
UK +44 870 340 4605   Germany +49 801 777 555 3402
US +1 360 207 0479 or +1 516 687 5200
FreeWorldDialup: 635378
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20050613/d817da0f/attachment.pgp