Let me explain;
1. I own my computer
2. As long as it does not infringe on the rights of another, I may do whatever I see fit with my computer
3. Having any sequence of bits on my computer is not immoral, to bar me from having sequences of bits on my computer is a violating of free speech and property rights
4. By extension, telling me that I can't use GPL code in a proprietary program is limiting my speech, and in essence makes you a co-owner of my property
5. Therefore, the GPL is immoral since it denies my property rights and freedom.
>>53679591
Previous thread objections
>"You can use GPU code in proprietary software, as long as you don't release it!"
Is the equivalent of saying
>"You can have any free speech or thoughts, as long as you keep them to yourself!"
2nd objection:
>"Hard drives aren't property, they're possessions"
Possession is a synonym for property. I'm allowed to do whatever I like with my property (or possessions), so as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of another
>"Not being allowed to murder limits my freedom!"
See above. Murder violates the rights of others. It's a false equivalence.
>>53679591
Congrats, you don't even know the first thing about the GPL. And congrats also on not even being able to spell it.
>>53679635
GPL* Darn
>You don't know the first thing..
Not an argument.
>>53679591
4 is a fallacy.
Nothing limits you from placing GPL code in any kind of program, the GPL simply limits a proprietor from distributing GPL derived binaries without providing the original source and build scripts of that binary in a way the end user might study and modify. By using GPL-licensed code in your proprietary programs and violating the license by not providing source access to GPL covered components, you are violating the constitutionally granted copyrights of the original author(s) and you are also violating the contract law that controls use of that code which simply does not belong to you.
A non-disclosure agreement is legal, enforceable, and not seen as an abridgement of first amendment rights since it is a civil contract. A required-disclosure agreement is this the same.
You nitwit
>>53679591
>2. As long as it does not infringe on the rights of another
>telling me that I can't use GPL code in a proprietary program
>>53679632
>You can use GPU code in proprietary software, as long as you don't release it!
You are retarded, that's the correct answer to your question. Consider suicide.
Your computer is noy truly free unless it has libreboot on it. Fucking cpu botnets forced upon our throat
If you want to include proprietary software, just use the the GNU Lesser General Public License 2 you newfag.
1. You own your hardware, but you don't own the proprietary software running on it. That means you don't own your computer.
2. Sure.
3. Nope. CP is also just a sequence of bits and it's illegall and immoral. By doing things the license doesn't allow, you are infringing the copyright holders rights.
4. & 5. It is immoral to write proprietary software, because you deny other peoples freedom.
>>53679632
>See above. Murder violates the rights of others. It's a false equivalence.
Distributing proprietary software violates the rights of others. Their right to freedom.
The GPL exists to benefit both developers AND users, not just one party.
>>53679917
>You are validating the license
I never agreed to the license. You do not own a sequence of bits or characters, no one does. To say otherwise is limiting freedom of speech.
>>53680178
>You have free speech, you just can't speak publicly!
>>53681675
Don't need to. No one owns ideas, or thoughts. It's perfectly moral for me to place GNU code into proprietary software.
>>53681765
>you don't own the proprietary software running on [your computer]
And neither does anyone else. I am allowed to copy and replicate it on my computer, copying any idea or sequence of bits is perfectly moral.
>>53681807
>distributing proprietary software violates the rights of others
not an argument.
>>53682438
>It's just le sequence of bits!
*tips fedora*
>>53682438
>It's perfectly moral for me to place GNU code into proprietary software.
You're going against the creator's wishes. It's like if you take copyright protected content and use it however you wish.
If you want to use OSS code in your proprietary work then you can use code licensed under Apache or BSD.
>>53682438
>To say otherwise is limiting freedom of speech.
>To have an opinion is limiting freedom of speech.
>>53679591
>As long as it does not infringe on the rights of another, I may do whatever I see fit with my computer
>GPL is immoral since it denies my property rights and freedom
GPL is a license distributed by the copyright owners of a program, if you don't respect it, you're effectively "infringing on the rights of another", and violating property rights.
Hey man idk much about languages and licenses, but people have helped me in the past with some things without telling me it is from a source or from their own mind; in the event it is from a source, is it considered a derivative even if I have never looked at/looked for it?
>>53682438
>I never agreed to the license
But the proprietor did so that they might use the software, and you agrees to their terms of services so you might use theirs.
>you do not own a sequence of bits
Arguing the morality of copyright is different from arguing the realities of contract and copyright law in civil liability. Pick one
>>53682604
>going against their wishes
So what? Essentially any opinion someone says will offend or "go against the wishes" of anyone else. What I'm talking about is a question of morality; the GPL (along with all "intellectual property" claims) infringes on freedom of speech and property rights.
>>53682618
Having an opinion is part of freedom of speech
>>53682686
>"Hey guys, look at this cool painting I made! But you're not allowed to take a photo of it, that would make me really upset"
I don't care about your feelings. Making a copy of something is part of free speech
>>53679591
Pic related - you.
>>53682438
>telling me what I can and can't do with software is violating my rights
>telling others what they can and can't do with software doesn't violate their rights
>>53679591
Proprietary software - by definition - infringes on the rights of others. The GPL is there to make sure that you can't legally try to infringe on the rights of others. You nitwit.
>>53679591
>1. I own my computer
irrelevant
>2. As long as it does not infringe on the rights of another, I may do whatever I see fit with my computer
Indeed. Stallman argues that proprietary software infringes on the user's right.
>3. Having any sequence of bits on my computer is not immoral, to bar me from having sequences of bits on my computer is a violating of free speech and property rights
Nobody bans you form that and Stallman does not consider using prepriety software as immoral. What he considers as immoral is creating non-free software, not using it.
>4. By extension, telling me that I can't use GPL code in a proprietary program
This is highly ironic as your non-free program does not allow anybody to use its code.
>is limiting my speech
What does this have to do with limiting your speech? You can still say whatever you want.
>rest
:^)
>>53682438
>not an argument.
Nice argument!
>>53679591
>not immoral
Immoral is undefined in this context.
>As long as it does not infringe on the rights of another, I may do whatever I see fit with my computer
Who gave you that idea? Not only that, but you are in fact infringing on someone's rights given to them by the state if you violate the terms of copyright.
>Having any sequence of bits on my computer is not immoral
Why isn't it?
>>53682438
>You do not own a sequence of bits or characters, no one does.
Firstly, the state would beg to differ. Secondly, you pretend as though there is no meaning attached to objects we interact with in the real world, and therefore this frees you from repercussions. There is in fact meaning, ascribed by a society, to things like "collections of atoms" and "sequences of bits".
>I never agreed to the license.
Agreement is just chemical reactions in your brain. It's not immoral to disregard whatever chemical reactions happen in your brain. Right?
What you are deciding is moral and immoral are also just you moving muscles in a limb of your body in order to press down on plastic caps that transmit electrical signals to a computer. Right?
You're being a hypocrite by reducing some things, but not reducing everything else. You're reducing things when it's convenient to you.
If you do not agree, then you can live outside society.
>not an argument.
Why not?
You should send rms a mail with that and post the results so I can have a laugh.
>>53685882
op is a shitposter. You're not going to achieve much "debating" him.
>>53679591
>4. By extension, telling me that I can't use GPL code in a proprietary program is limiting my speech, and in essence makes you a co-owner of my property
You're free to make something proprietary with GPL code.
You just can't distribute said binaries to other parties unless you agree to also give them access to your source under the GPL.
>>53679591
>1. I own my computer
For some meaning of ‘own’, I guess.
>2. As long as it does not infringe on the rights of another, I may do whatever I see fit with my computer
In an ideal world, yes. In the real world, this is not the case (see EULAs).
>3. Having any sequence of bits on my computer is not immoral, to bar me from having sequences of bits on my computer is a violating of free speech and property rights
Sequences of bits don't magically appear on your computer. The technique you used to procure those techniques might mean the bits themselves are tied to an immoral process. For example, storing child pornography is illegal (since its generation is tied to an illegal process). Simply the nature of having it on your computer means your computer is tied to its creation.
>4. By extension, telling me that I can't use GPL code in a proprietary program is limiting my speech, and in essence makes you a co-owner of my property
Nobody is telling you this, though. The GPL certainly doesn't prevent you from it.
>5. Therefore, the GPL is immoral since it denies my property rights and freedom.
Non sequitur. The GPL does not prevent you from using it in proprietary code.
It just prevents you from publishing your work to others.
>>53686345
That's not quite correct. The GPL only requires that the GPL part of the program must be under the GPL. The additions to the program must be licensed under a GPL compatible license. To be GPL compatible requires the additional part of the program to the recipient to have access to that source.
all those envato millionaires selling wordpress shit :^P
>>53686423
Wrong.
>>53686423
>The GPL only requires that the GPL part of the program must be under the GPL.
You're thinking of the LGPL. If you include GPL code in your program, the rest of the program must become licensed under the GPL. This is why it is claimed to have a "viral" nature.
>>53686542
Spork.
>>53679591
>4. By extension, telling me that I can't use GPL code in a proprietary program is limiting my speech, and in essence makes you a co-owner of my property
You can do what the fuck you want with the GPL'd code, but you obviously can't distribute it along with proprietary code.
>>53686563
No I'm not. Only the GPL part must be GPL. Any additions you add to the program must be [b]GPL compatible[/b] but you don't need it to be GPL. This is why you can license a single program that's divided into a GPLv3 part and a Apachev2 part. The Apache licensed part isn't GPL licensed but it is GPLv3 compatible.
>>53679591
>Whole argument based on intellectual property
>Denies the intellectual property of others.
You cannot complain that GPL infringes on your right of free speech by restricting you from distributing the code in proprietary software because your use of the code in proprietary software infringes on the property rights of the owners of that copyright. If you do not agree to the terms of the open source license and comply with them you have no more right to that code than a developer who receives a copy of proprietary software has any right to redistribute binaries.
>>53686603
>Any additions you add to the program must be [b]GPL compatible[/b] but you don't need it to be GPL.
https://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
>You may convey a work based on the Program, or the modifications to produce it from the Program, in the form of source code under the terms of section 4, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
>
>[...]
> c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy. This License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7 additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts, regardless of how they are packaged. This License gives no permission to license the work in any other way, but it does not invalidate such permission if you have separately received it.
“this License”. Not “GPL-compatible license”. THIS license.
>>53686660
You're misinterpreting what this means. It means the GPLv3 part must be GPLv3. You're not allowed to change the license of the GPLv3 part.
>>53686685
Unless the FSF is also misinterpreting, you're wrong.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLModuleLicense
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#LinkingOverControlledInterface
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLInProprietarySystem
>The difference between this and “incorporating” the GPL-covered software is partly a matter of substance and partly form. The substantive part is this: if the two programs are combined so that they become effectively two parts of one program, then you can't treat them as two separate programs. So the GPL has to cover the whole thing.
In fact, when you say "that a GPL-compatible license" is okay, you're wrong too.
>No. The X11 license is compatible with the GPL, so you can add a module to the GPL-covered program and put it under the X11 license. But if you were to incorporate them both in a larger program, that whole would include the GPL-covered part, so it would have to be licensed as a whole under the GNU GPL.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLWrapper
This is where the power of the GPL is shown, and it's why a lot of people avoid it. I think it's a great license though.
ITT: You're all faggots
OP is explicitly stating that he has no intention of distributing his own code as a proprietary blob (aka he's not infringing on anyone's freedom).
It's not a violation of the GPL to use it for what ever the fuck you want to on your own system(s).
Seriously, have anyone of you even read the fucking GPL? Any version?
>>53686781
read the thread, op is a faggot that doesn't understand the gpl
>>53686755
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLIncompatibleAlone
>If the license for a module Q has a requirement that's incompatible with the GPL, but the requirement applies only when Q is distributed by itself, not when Q is included in a larger program, does that make the license GPL-compatible? Can I combine or link Q with a GPL-covered program?
Module Q only has to be GPL compatible, it is not necessary to be relicensed under the GPL. If this is true, then the whole combined program will fulfill the purpose of the GPL which is to convey the four specific freedoms. Module Q does not hinder in the GPL's ability to convey the four specific freedoms of free software. This is what I mean when I say that it only has to be GPL compatible.
>>53679591
>By extension
No. You're defining what that means to you, not what the actual meaning of that phrase. In other words, what "by extension" means to you is different than what it means to lawyers and legal professionals. Nice try, though.
>>53686849
>Under this specific hypothetical scenario that literally has nothing to do with what we were discussing and only concerns modules to begin with
Great point fucktard
Open source > "Free software"
Proprietary software is equally free as in libre. All software not made with slave labor is equally free. Open source developers use copyleft licenses because they think the quid pro quo development-usage model is better for the health of the project. Open source developers use permissive licenses because they just want to disseminate the fruit of their labor to anyone that might find benefit from it.
Freetards use copyleft licenses because they resent the proprietary software business model and think modifying source code is a moral imperative, and shun permissive licenses because they also enable the proprietary business model.
Basically, pragmatists like Torvalds are reasonable human beings and freetards like Stallman are resentful manchildren.
>>53687003
>Proprietary software is equally free as in libre.
It does not give the freedoms guaranteed by the OSI's definition of open source, nor the FSF's four-freedoms model. As such, it is not libre.
>All software not made with slave labor is equally free.
This is not the freedom we are talking about.
>Freetards use copyleft licenses because they resent the proprietary software business model
So what? You seem to have a problem with people who use it for one reason, but not the other. Why? Just so that you can call names?
The reasoning behind choosing a particular license is irrelevant.
>and think modifying source code is a moral imperative
No, they think that distributing code with the four freedoms should be preserved and passed on.
>>53686968
The nomenclature for module doesn't have a very technical meaning in this instance. It's just a way to distinguish "the code written by Q" and the original GPL program. Now if the term used was "plugin", that has a different meaning to me. Do you conflate the words "module" and "plugin"? It does have that legitimate meaning but I'm not using that meaning in my case.
>>53687003
Proprietary software isn't free for users because users are not permitted to practise four specific freedoms of software.
>>53687055
The point is that your definition of freedom is shit, and your monopolization of the term is a scam. If the software was not made under duress, nor was anyone made to use it under duress, then it's an equally "free as in libre" part of the ecosystem as any other.
>>53687105
Having choices to choose does not imply having freedom. Users who make the choice to accept and reject proprietary software does not mean they have freedom.
>>53687105
>and your monopolization of the term is a scam
It's not mine, this is the way that it's been since pretty much the inception of software that gives users the freedom to edit, have access to source and redistribute and run for any purpose.
If you feel that's wrong, start your own movement to try and overturn it.
>then it's an equally "free as in libre" part of the ecosystem as any other
I don't understand what you're saying. Libre software is that which gives you liberties.
If you want, we can call it by a different term, just so that we don't hurt your feelings. How about "software that provides the four freedoms defined by the FSF"?
>>53687129
If you choose to use whatever software with whatever license terms, with plenty of viable alternatives, then you already have all the freedom in the software world. The freetard definition is the inferior one.
>>53682438
>I never agreed to the license.
then you don't get to use the code
>You do not own a sequence of bits or characters, no one does
They do though
>No one owns ideas, or thoughts
Software is implementation, not ideas or thoughts.
>>53687173
In the software world, there is more to freedom than just choosing or rejecting software. If you believe this is false, then you will never understand what is the GPL, you will always be confused about what is the GPL. Everything you believe about the GPL will be nothing but strawmen arguments.
>>53687208
You choose a piece of software and agree to the license terms. If you want different terms, you choose different software. It's funny you say I don't understand the GPL, because "open source" pragmatists were the ones that actually understood the GPL better than the FSF. They understood the GPL as enforced quid pro quo license terms. The FSF read more into it, and had to revise it to prohibit extra things they were resentful towards like patents and hardware signing. And will probably have to do so again to make it conform to their shitty definition of freedom.
>>53687277
You're saying that "as long as I can choose the software then I have freedom". I say you don't understand the GPL because you believe that the only freedom to software is your ability to choose and reject software.
The GPL exists because Stallman believes that there is more to freedom in software than this specific meaning. If you fail to understand Stallman's ideas, then you cannot possibly understand the purpose of the GPL. Now understanding Stallman's ideas doesn't imply that you agree with Stallman. If you dismiss Stallman's ideas as "shitty definition of freedom" then it is impossible to know what the GPL means because you will not understand the person who wrote it.
>>53687277
>They understood the GPL as enforced quid pro quo license terms.
You can say that, but I can also just say the GPL enforces GPL license terms. You're adding meaning of "quid pro quo" where you want. That's not necessarily the meaning of the GPL.
>and had to revise it to prohibit extra things they were resentful towards like patents and hardware signing
These were added as new issues were discovered.
>to make it conform to their shitty definition of freedom.
What's wrong with that?
1. You are a USER
2. You do not make the choice of using GPL code in a program
3. The GPL DOES NOT APPLY TO YOU for the most part because you're not going to be doing the things the GPL does apply to
4. STOP BEING A FUCKING DUMBSHIT PAID MICROSOFT SHILL SPREADING FUD AND LIES
5. Fuck off.
Do you fagots even read /philosophy?
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.en.html
>>53682891
I never agreed. Social contracts are not valid.
>>53683305
Why shouldn't persons have the freedom to fork code into proprietary software?
Under your logic, if someone releases "print 'hello world'" under the GNU, then nobody can use that in proprietary software.
>>53683522
>proprietary software - by definition - infringes on the rights of others
No, it doesn't. Assertions aren't arguments. You don't have a "right" to the source code, you do have every right to make unlimited copies of the program, to replicate or duplicate it or whatever else. You own your computer and you can do whatever you want with it, as long as it doesn't initiate force against anyone else.
This thread is pointless and there was some disgusting peado making a similar arvument about his filth a few months ago
>>53689108
>social contracts are not valid
Ignoring the part where you click "I accept", and ignoring the part where you are still liable for legal action should you violate the trend of the license then pic very much related
