> Under US copyright law, which is the law under which most free software programs have historically been first published, there are very substantial procedural advantages to registration of copyright. And despite the broad right of distribution conveyed by the GPL, enforcement of copyright is generally not possible for distributors: only the copyright holder or someone having assignment of the copyright can enforce the license. If there are multiple authors of a copyrighted work, successful enforcement depends on having the cooperation of all authors.
What they don't tell you is the FSF now owns your code, and has complete right to change the license - even to something like a proprietary license.
Of course you can safely assume the FSF wouldn't close say emacs, they may however push it to a new version of the GPL that you disagree with. They want total control.
The GPL is great for a lot of things, other licenses are good for other things, but the important part is when you contribute to code you're agreeing to that license - you're agreeing that your code will always be under that license unless you agree to a new one.
The FSF takes that freedom away from you, they are taking the freedom to choose. No worse than MS,apple,facebook, etc
The real evil thing is how the FSF make giving up all your rights it in a rosy tint "but we would only use it to move to a more free license - trust us"
>the FSF now owns your code, and has complete right to change the license - even to something like a proprietary license.
source?
Also Stallman would never allow that to happen
Carson Cook
>they may however push it to a new version of the GPL that you disagree with How come that Linux is still GPLv2 then?
Hudson Myers
Nobody actually gives a fuck about this guy and his ideology. He should go back to pretend he is a doctor and eat feet cheese while looking like homeless smelly looser. Guess him and his followers are alike anyway.
Eli Rogers
becuase they never signed over the copyright (not to mention linus doesn't like the GPLv3). To move to GPLv3 would require getting the consent of everyone who has committed to the linux kernel.
Joseph Rogers
So what prevents anybody sticking to GPLv2 and therefore not getting pushed to a new one by FSF?
Aiden Brown
>Also Stallman would never allow that to happen
Proprietary? no. A worse version of the GPL? you bet.
The man intentionally cripples innovation with FSF software because it /may/ prove dangerous. See the AST export and GCC for instance.
More importantly Stallman taught me not to trust others. Lots of companies have said they will release free code and not do bad things. Why should I treat stallman with any less scepticism?
Jace Reed
If it's a FSF project you're free to fork and release under GPLv2. I don't know what the deal is though if old code goes to a new GPL version that isn't compatible with 2.
Either way the FSF won't accept your code unless you hand over your copyright. A guy wanted to release public domain and I believe in the end they rejected his code because he didn't want to sign the papers.
Joshua Richardson
If they close an existing application the last free version will be forked.
Luke Rogers
Is this true? Is the US really such a backwards shithole that they don't have automatic copyright to the creator? Or is this dumbass nigger confusing it with a registered trademark?
Aaron Jones
Dumbass nigger
Gabriel Smith
Not if all the old code falls under a new license.
That's why this is scary, all the code that is owned by one entity can be moved to a new copyright and you will be in violation trying to use it under the old license (if that license doesn't allow it)
unless your RMS and get a personal army to write you all the code you want and violate their freedoms to give you information you want.
> I don't run non free javascript > Can you go to this website that makes you run non free javascript and copy/paste the text for me?
This seriously happens on a regular basis on mailing lists with RMS.
Benjamin White
One day Stallman will die and sociopathic MBAs will take over the FSF and destroy the brand in 10-15 years.
Jordan Phillips
10-15 years? You are just as delusional as Amdrone. Try 1-5 years.
Jackson Ward
>Amdrone
Levi Diaz
HAH, that's why I licence all of my code in WTFPL
RESIST CAPITALISM BABY!!!!
Camden Robinson
>Why should I treat stallman with any less scepticism? You can't play the level of autism he is doing
Easton Hill
>literally telling people to run proprietary software
>But there is one special case where using some nonfree software, and even urging others to use it, can be a positive thing. That's when the use of the nonfree software aims directly at putting an end to the use of that very same nonfree software. gnu.org/philosophy/is-ever-good-use-nonfree-program.en.html
I took the freedom-pill but I can't agree with Stallman on asking others to run nonfree javascript. Either he doesn't consider nonfree javascript to be a problem, which opens the door for a lot of exceptions to what is considered "nonfree enough," or he knows a lot of people on the mailing lists don't have a problem with nonfree javascript, which means he exploited them and lead them to run proprietary software. There may be another explanation here which I haven't thought of, but I doubt it's any more justified.
No basically he does shit that no one else could get away with, because he's RMS.
> don't work for a employer who uses non free software > buh ma family and house payments > why can't you be like me and travel the world preaching the gospel and living off donations?
Despite all his free time he doesn't even know basic internet protocol stuff...
> What is good about HTTP/2? What is bad about it?
> That doesn't help. I know what TCP is, but I never heard of "QoS".
this is the man making technical decision on the direction of free software.
Justin Miller
>If you were really going to starve, you'd be justified in writing nonfree software.
Eli Phillips
Today OP was not a faggot.
Hunter Lee
Thank you based Stallman. If not for GPL, gnu+linux would be an irrelevent footnoot in the anals of history, along with bsd. But thanks to your genius, it is now literally on all things everywhere.
Jason Brooks
> clang/LLVM uses bsd > BSD still shipping on network gear and used in tons of security gear. > OSX based on BSD > Sony game systems use BSD
BSD ain't dead
Only thing keeping linux relevant is that corporations are okay paying people to do kernel dev because the GPL2 is okay. If Linux went GPLv3 it would die and Open/net/free BSD would rise again to market dominance.
the whole reason we got GPLv3 is because RMS got salty tvio was able to release a box with closed source code ontop of the linux kernel.
GPLv3 has some crazy shit like requiring you to provide a means of changing the software on hardware. Which is a nice idea in theory until you realize your product has to waste board space and employee time to provide a means of flashing your toaster that runs GPLv3 software.
Linux thrives because people are paid to write code, corporations pay to write code because it's cheaper than writing from scratch. Corporations won't pay to write GPLv3 code because of the legal and practical hassles.
Christopher Rogers
The FSF offers developers the option of transfering rights to them, they do not force it. And it is not for anything that is GPL, it is only for parts of the GNU project.
Juan Miller
holy shit you are so wrong it hurts to read.
>the whole reason we got GPLv3 is because RMS got salty tvio was able to release a box with closed source code ontop of the linux kernel. He got salty because even though tvio was publishing the sources, they didn't let anybody else reflash the hardware without proper private keys only they had. >GPLv3 has some crazy shit like requiring you to provide a means of changing the software on hardware. Which is a nice idea in theory until you realize your product has to waste board space and employee time to provide a means of flashing your toaster that runs GPLv3 software. every fucking piece of hardware made in the last 2 decades has the ability to reflash the rom. because regular roms are rarely made due to their high costs and uselessness. the only time you want to use a non erasable rom is in safety critical hardware, which excludes consumer electronics. The hardware companies are wasting employee time and money on developing shit like "secure boot" to refrain regular people from changing the internal software of the hardware they buy.
Currently, android phone manufacturers freely practice the act of distributing non unlockable bootloaders and you cant do shit to them. If linux was gplv3, they had to end the practice and allow every phone to come with an unlockable bootloader. this is freedom for the user, ofcourse corporations wont want that. but you are too stupid to understand that.
You may like to get cucked by corporations who steal the bsd code and barely give anything back in return, but the rest of us like our freedom thank you very much. this is why bsd has barely any development nowadays btw. If it wasn't for GNU project, they wouldn't even have a working system right now
Lincoln Wood
>implying the world isn't always balancing on the head of a pin anyways Sorry but some lawyer somewhere shitting themselves over copyrighted 1s and 0s means nothing to me. I have the pirate bay. I have product key generators. The copyright holders can off themselves. All of the code I've ever produced on my own time has been free and open source. Look at all these fucks I give! No matter what laws are passed on the internet or computers, I'll still find a way to do whatever the fuck I want. I won't have any real complaints until people start getting locked up for downloading a windows iso.
Nolan Martinez
lolwut if I create a project under any of the GPLs, it's my right to change it to whatever fucking license I please, and the FSF really can't do shit about it in either version of their licenses, and they do not own the code, I do
