Stallman's geocities page says THIS makes a license not count as free software

>Stallman's geocities page says THIS makes a license not count as free software

Other urls found in this thread:

gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.en.html
gnu.org/audio/gnu-pronunciation.ogg
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose :^)

What, you want the JSON people to be the ones to determine what constitutes good and what constitutes evil? For all you know, it could be very different from what you think good and evil are.

(((Stallman))) hasnt made a single good software since 1984 and since then he only spend his time with indian meditation groups and traveling the world promoting activism instead of good code and helping people make useful software

it's nonfree and particularly dangerous because it's entirely ambiguous. evne the retarded anti nuclear proliferation bullshit in Apple's EULA at least defines a particular "evil"

>make retarded addendum to your license
>people treat your license as retarded
oh shit who'd'a'thunk it?

>Hey stallmann, you support freedom right ?
>Then people should have the right to choose not pay tax or pay others people healthcare just because they spent their lives eating junk food
>B-BUT YOU ARE A NAZI

Freedom means freedom for both good and evil purposes, for any purpose. You can't just have it one way or the other, especially when it's such an arbitrary term.

>I should get to live in a country and use it's various services and military protection for free!
You are 'free' to move to somewhere more in line with your politics, like Somalia. Nobody is stopping you, nobody is forcing you to live here and pay taxes.

>Companies that sell-distribute closed source software are evil
>but monopolies (conglomerates between pharmaceutical companies and insurance like McKesson) providing """Free""" health care is totally ok
No one is forcing you to not make them rich

Underrated post.

gcc
emacs
gnu coreutils
>good
[citation needed]
Stallman does support free healthcare, but he has never supported the corporations behind them, or even the government in general

Even the ebil Nazis on Sup Forums need software.

>the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint
True freedom doesn't exist

this, licenses aren't the place for jokes

>can’t even tell when someone is being cheeky

What level of autism is this man at?

> only
> instead

> coding makes the world better
lmfao

overrated reply. don't even read that

Many companies also have legal problems with this license, in fact.

>GPL = Communism = Evil

Of course he hates it.

>Not using this:
Copyright (c) ,
All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this
list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice,
this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation
and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
3. Will not be re-licensed under any GPL version or similar copyleft license.
4. The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.
5. Shall not be used by American Military, Intelligence, or Security
Departments or any of their (sub-)*contractors or bodies with information
sharing agreements with them.
6. Shall not be used by any holder of Israeli Citizenship, Israeli Government
Body, Israeli Company, or denier of Israeli war crimes or Israeli crimes
against humanity.
7. Shall not be used by anyone who supports, advocates, seeks, performs, or
assists abortion.
8. Shall not be used by any Anti-theist, Anarchist, or Militant Feminist.

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND
ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE
DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR
ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES;
LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND
ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
(INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS
SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

Is this the GlovePIE licence?

>You may not export this software to Israel, or use it in Israel (including the occupied territories), until Israel has ended its occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Lebanon, Syria, and anywhere else it may occupy, or until Israel abolishes apartheid (granting all Jews and non-Jews in its territories equal rights). If you try to run it in Israel before then, it will give you an error.

>8. Shall not be used by any Anti-theist, Anarchist, or Militant Feminist.

But it's !

he's right though

Doctor Evil would not be able to use json as he is explicitly evil, and similarly many fantastical villains.

...

I'd rather have the JSON people tell me how to use it than that fat autist.

Read the sticky.

Pepe Public License
use by Normies prohibited under federal law

>\thread

i never get that, why you cant be anti-feminist and be atheist at the same time according to the far right

That "fat autist" literally tells you you can use it for whatever the fuck you want.

>relicensing under GPL is disallowed, but making it proprietary is ok
You couldn't be more cucked.

Anti-theism is not the same as atheism.

i can't link it with proprietary modules
i can't sue for DMCA violations if it constitutes any part of my DRM
i can't enforce my patent rights
i can't cryptographically sign it and distribute it inside a hardware product that checks for my signature before running any code
i can't create non-disclosure-agreements about the source of my still-in-alpha-development new software

Who said I'm far right?

>>relicensing under GPL is disallowed, but making it proprietary is ok
>You couldn't be more cucked.

>doesn't understand that anyone can still sell your GPL code

Fucking braindead commies.

No, the fat autist literally tells you that you can use it for "whatever you want"**
He is a meme that newfags took seriously and now are elitist about it just like gentoo

rms is a man of principle and eating from between his toes.

>>doesn't understand that anyone can still sell your GPL code
Which is something they can do with code licensed under meme license too, except they also have the power to make it proprietary, so you won't be able to benefit from their improvements to your source code.

You know there are far right anti-feminists and atheists, right?

You can use it for whatever the fuck you want, except take away freedom from the users.
Unless you're one of those fucking idiots who really believe that you're not free unless it's legal to rape and plunder, then you're OK.

This is not a discussion, GPL restricts you and Stallman is a close minded left-leaning closet fascist as has been shown time and time again and calling GPL "free as in freedom" is the ultimate troll newfags fall for.

>This is not a discussion
Then why are you discussing?
>GPL restricts you
In the same way the Constitution and the laws restrict you from raping and plundering, yes.
>and Stallman is a close minded left-leaning closet fascist
Nice ad hominem there.
>has has been shown time and time again and calling GPL "free as in freedom" is the ultimate troll newfags fall for.
This is a lie. Only seems to make sense thanks to the fallacy that precedes it.

Try again.

My feelings.

B
A
S
E
D

S
T
A
L
L
M
A
N

>so you won't be able to benefit from their improvements to your source code

It's THEIR improvements, not mine. I can't and shouldn't try to control what other people do with THEIR OWN work.

Kek

...

I'm tired of the "free software" shit. It is not free. Under the standard GPL license you have no freedom because if you modify or build upon any part of a program you will have to release your software under that license too. It's a license pushing other people who want to use it as part of their software into their own point of view.
I know there are licenses like the LGPL but that's not the point. Also gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.en.html

Activists also constantly treat open source not using """free""" licenses like they're evil. Sometimes they even spread misinformation.
Licenses like MIT are the way to go if you truly want freedom. You only have to include the license somewhere, it doesn't have to be super clearly visible in your program. And that should be needed anyway so it's ok.

Define Good.
Define Evil.

Try to agree with anyone else about those definitions...

Bullshit. It's about the user's freedom, not yours. The FSF doesn't give a flying fuck about you not being able to restrict the freedom of your users. That not a right you should have.

triggered trump cultist

He is 100% right though.

>In the same way the Constitution and the laws restrict you from raping and plundering, yes.

It only restricts you if you're the government and even then not completely. They can rape and plunder you all they want. They just have to follow due process. So yeah filling out the proper paperwork is technically a restriction.

It's the difference between negative freedom "i promise not to personally fuck with your rights, no guarantees about the next guy though" and positive freedom "i promise to protect your rights from others".
Permissive licenses like MIT/BSD/Apache are promises of negative freedom towards anyone who modifies or redistributes code.
GPL is a promise of positive freedom aimed at protecting the rights of the community as a whole FROM those who redistribute the code, intended to protect against bad-faith actors who try to lock down their software for profit.

The GPL is absolutely a political license, with much of its language not designed for the praticalities of software distribution but for what Stallman feels are larger ethical reasons. Activists who subscribe to the free software ethos dislike so-called "permissive free licenses" because they allow greedy companies to take the code and do unethical things with it. For example, I could "release" code for a new patented technology based on a previously-existing MIT license codebase, accept any community contributions to the project, but file a patent suit against anyone other than me who tried to distribute a fork of my tech. The GPL says that the rights of the users to redistribute and modify the source are more important than the rights of the patent-holder to prevent redistribution, so one of GPL3's many "restrictions" is that it forces you to grant patent licenses to everyone you redistribute to, or else not redistribute at all.

what about the freedom to drop the GNU from my operating systems' name?

Seems kinda highbrow, but just trust in the infallibility of Stallman and lean not unto your own understanding.
He's always been proven right, so far.

But people would think you're talking about the kernel. You might accidentally make yourself look like horse's ass.

>But people would think you're talking about the kernel.
Literally nobody thinks that.
Ganoooo plus Linux weenies don't sincerely think it, either; it's an affectation

The name “GNU” is a recursive acronym for “GNU's Not Unix!”; it is pronounced as one syllable with a hard g, like “grew” but with the letter “n” instead of “r”.

gnu.org/audio/gnu-pronunciation.ogg

See. You're doing it now, and you don't even realize it.

Licenses don't even matter anymore when it's third worlders ripping your code anyway.

Good and Evil are not objective standards. Any agreement that uses these words are ambigous and hence can be used to violate freedoms.

Stallman's greatest trick was co-opting use the word "freedom". It's inane to call software "free as in freedom". The free market where developers and users can navigate, produce, and patronize as they please is where the freedom is. A Windows user is just as free as a GNU user, or a GNU plus Linux user, or a BSD user, and so on. The GPL simply mandates quid pro quo among developers. It's a pragmatic choice, not an ideological one, and for Stallman to pretend like it forwards freedom in the slightest simply maligns those who don't like the smell of his shit.

you have exactly that freedom
note how the gnu project only goes as far as complaining about this in blog posts and has never sued a "linux distro" for license violations

the free market is a mythological construct that exists nowhere in nature, the economic equivalent of physics students' frictionless spheres

>A Windows user is just as free
>Botnet is free

Excellent post tovarisch.

>free as in freedom
>can't choose propietary software if you wish
That's literally his only flaw.

Freedom doesn't mean enslaving others.

>can't choose proprietary software
>his only law
Show me where he ever said that.
Protip, you can't.

You are entirely free to use proprietary software if you wish, you just can't redistribute GPL licensed software as proprietary.

The classical economic concept of free markets requires
1 -- no regulation
2 -- informed consumers, able to choose between competitors based on the facts
3 -- actors work for their own rational self-interest
4 -- low/no barrier to entry for new competitors

For the time being, ignore that only a fraction of real world industries can satisfy point #4, and ignore the possibilities of anticompetitive monopolies or cartels.

It is logically impossible for qualities 1, 2, and 3 to coexisting. A business which acts in its own rational self interest WILL mislead and misinform consumers in pursuit of greater profit, by hiding flaws or lying about nonexistent benefits. Yes, the deluxe sausages are totally different from the normal sausages, and neither contains rats or clumsy butchers' fingers! Yes, this pill will treat your chronic pain and is guaranteed to be non-addictive! And of course you have lies by omission as well, such as selling "planned obsolescence" products designed to fail after a few years and letting the customer believe they are higher quality.
The only way to satisfy point #2 is either to force honesty through regulation as in point #1, or to depend on business selflessly and charitably choosing honesty over profit, a violation of point #3.

or i suppose you could invent the study of magical divination and provide cheap crystal balls to all participants in the market

Apple has some similar shit in itunes eula, like anyone would use their trash media player in nuclear warfare.

>Implying that Stallman writes code anymore.

He has faggot volunteers do that for him. Then they move on to actually making money and stop working for free for a hairy man child.

Free as in Freedom :^)

You can use GPL licensed software in a service. You just can't actually license or provide the source code to them. If you are selling web hosting services that utilizes some GPL licensed server software as an example you are in the clear.

Where did he implied that? You just wanted to post something retarded.

Im talking about his choice of distros you retards.

unless the software is licensed with the AGPL, in case the server hosting the software must also provide clients with the option to download the source

No free distro prohibits installing nonfree software.

he's right, i don't see a problem with that. that shitty license is why we don't use json in true korea

Look at stallman's reasons why most popular distros aren't supported by the FSF.

Their improvements to YOUR code. You can absolutely control what other people do with your code.

"disapproves" does not mean "prohibits"
These distros are unsupported in the sense that they don't have a thumbs up from Stallman, but there are no physical steps taken to e.g. prevent GNU software from running in nonfree environments, or to prevent nonfree software from running on free distros.

Critizising or speaking out against something is not the same as censoring it. FSF not "approving" of proprietary software is not a violation of software freedoms, in the same way that a neighbor insulting you for your political beliefs is not a violation of your right to profess those beliefs.

>FROM those who redistribute the code, intended to protect against bad-faith actors who try to lock down their software for profit.

Oh look, commies are using this strawman again. If I were to fork linux and make it close source, what happens to everybody else's linux install? Nuffin'. What happens to the distros? Nufffin'. What happens to other's ability to add to linux? Nuffin'.

GPL doesn't protect any freedom. It REMOVES YOUR FREEDOM from doing what you want with """free""" code and mandates that you work for "the collective".

If you give it away and they change it, it's not your code anymore.

>They're improvements to MS' code. MS can absolutely control what other people do with MS's code.

"OMG, MS is so evil for not letting people do what they want with their system!"

>They're improvements to RMS' code. RMS can absolutely control what other people do with RMS's code.

"OMG, RMS is so "good" for not letting people do what they want with their system!"

>Sup Forums logic

GPL gives them the freedom to modify your fork, by restricting your own freedom to keep the source to yourself (unless you never distribute binaries either)
The GPL does not protect pre-existing freedoms, it creates new freedoms that had not previously existed.

If your only moral code is the ancap "non aggression policy" or some bullshit, then what you have done is fine -- it has not caused any harm to individuals by restricting their pre-existing freedoms. In the same way, if everyone around you is dying of hunger and you have a magic wand that can create fishes and loaves, refusing to feed them causes no DECREASE of their quality of life and is permissible by the NAP.
But to feed the hungry is still morally right, and to refuse to feed them is morally wrong.
The "non-aggression-policy" is not a coherent ethical system, it's just an excuse for bitcoiners and ayn rand fanboys to fantasize about being fantastically rich and sneering at the poor while assuring themselves that they're not immoral.

It is not that simple though. The GPL license pushes political points of view if you really think about it. Some people even compare it to things like communism and anarchy and honestly it's not very far away. Having the freedom of doing whatever you want with something is one thing, and forcing you to release any modifications under the same license is another thing.
In this current world and age things are like that. A lot of stuff (not necessarily tech related) is proprietary, sometimes for good and sometimes for bad. If I released some open source project right now I wouldn't want anyone being unable to modify, use it and sell it as proprietary software. I have no issues with someone just trying to sell his work, and that's possible with the GPL but not ideal since whoever buys something once can just give it away for free or even sell it too.
I know most of the time anything proprietary is evil and can't be trusted, but it is not always the case and this is not what should be done about it.

Underrated

TRANSLATION::::: I havent had any publicity at all in the last few months. I must make some controversy, oh shit... hmmmm ....let me see now ahah yep this is it JSON clause....good... evil, yep that will get a load of twat faced fat no-brained idiots talking about me.

"good" is subjective. Stallman is correct. OP is illiterate.