[Asterisk-Users] Re: Digium Website Update: Asterisk
BusinessEdition
Terry H. Gilsenan
thg at interoil.com
Mon Jun 13 15:16:55 MST 2005
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asterisk-users-bounces at lists.digium.com
> [mailto:asterisk-users-bounces at lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of
> trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 14 June 2005 3:51 AM
> To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
> Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] Re: Digium Website Update:
> Asterisk BusinessEdition
>
> 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).
>
Ahem,
The GPL is about the freedown of the code, not the freedom of the individual
>
> > > 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#TOCLinkingOverControl
ledInterface
> 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#TOCDistributeWithSour
ceOnInternet
> 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
>
More information about the asterisk-users
mailing list