Stop using the GPL

[woodenshoe-wi]

Technosaurus posted the link in this thread, and I thought it was more concerning than the supposed problems with using the GPL license.

I know and I agree with you. I'm just saying that I don't understand how this particular situation can be used as an example that "GPL is bad" (so my post was directed to technosaurus, not you - that's why I quoted his post directly and not yours).

Aah, and I was even wondering how the /url tag got back in the quote when I was sure I deleted it. I guess I shouldn't be posting at almost 2:00 in the morning...

Back on subject, I think the concern related to the GPL that the article has is that the GPL 2 lacks a no-rescission clause and that is the reason that the disgruntled kernel developers can threaten to withdraw their submissions.

Even if there was no issue with rescinding permission, disgruntled developers might leave. And stranger still, what if the employer of a "blacklisted" developer doesn't fire them and they continue working on the project? Would there be patches that would be used in vendor kernels and distro kernels that would not be allowed in official vanilla kernels?

Regardless of the type of license used by a project, I think maintaining a civil tone on any official mailing lists or forums by having good moderators is probably as far as it should go. To me the idea of "blacklisting" people, potentially for their political views, is scary. Unless of course they are trying to submit code with legal strings attached. That could be a threat to the project and is serious.

Technosaurus must not read any End User License Agreements...

[jamesbond]

My counter-view of "GPLv3 is too long" is the story from Geoff Graham, who single-handedly built a single-chip Personal Computer that can output to VGA and TV and released it long before Raspberry Pi was even a gleam in Eben Upton's eyes (and it's open hardware too - you can build it yourself if you want, unlike the Pies. And yes you can do GPIOs with it too - just like the Pies).

He initially use GPL as his license of choice. Here is the link to the story: http://geoffg.net/OpenSource.html, and read what happened. While you're there, feel free to browse his sites for many interesting tidbits.

TL;DR He eventually dropped the GPL all right - but not because of it's not free enough, in fact, it's the other way around: after what he has experienced, he felt that the GPL, with all of its intricacies and special clauses, still didn't protect him enough. His (own) new license is something that is even stricter ("less free") than the GPL. In his situation, are we going to tell him to drop the GPL and go for BSD/MIT/WTFPL/etc instead? (this is rhetorical question and doesn't need an answer).

So, to re-iterate: when it comes to choosing licenses - to each his own. Choose carefully for one that suits needs and objectives; and make sure that you know what you get from the license you choose.

_______________________________

On the side topics:

Regardless of the type of license used by a project, I think maintaining a civil tone on any official mailing lists or forums by having good moderators is probably as far as it should go.

Agreed.

To me the idea of "blacklisting" people, potentially for their political views, is scary.

Welcome to the 21st century.

[woodenshoe-wi]

There are plenty of other arguments against the GPL including its extensive legalese, being "viral", the FSF itself and many others. Why do you use/avoid the GPL?

Code: Select all

/* Alternatives
 * Use a permissive license (MIT, BSD, CC0, etc...) and trust in people.
 * Use LGPL v2.x with static linking exception and no later version clause
 */

On the subject of alternatives, I read the MIT and BSD licenses and they don't seem to have any requirement to distribute the source code.

For a project written in a scripting language that would not be a problem because there would be no way to "compile" the code and distribute an un-modifiable version.

Unlike musher0 I don't care about getting the credit and would rather remain pseudo anonymous than put my full legal name on a license. Especially since I don't have the money to pay lawyers to defend my copyright, and the FSF is probably only willing to defend GPL licenses in court.

If I had to pick a license for a script based project I would be more inclined towards the "Unlicense". https://choosealicense.com/licenses/unlicense/ Since it is basically public domain, it should have the best compatibility of all.

If there was ever a problem that someone didn't want to contribute because of the license they could start working on it with whatever license they wanted.

[technosaurus]

If I had infinite time, I'd love to sit down and do a line by line analysis of the whole text, but that would be wasting a lot of time better spent on useful code. ... so I will just take a look at the "Evil" clause that allows for unilateral modification (like Facebook and MoviePass) and causes different versions to be incompatible if it is omitted (why samba and Linux cannot share code)

14. Revised Versions of this License.

The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of
the GNU General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will
be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to
address new problems or concerns.

Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the
Program specifies that a certain numbered version of the GNU General
Public License "or any later version" applies to it, you have the
option of following the terms and conditions either of that numbered
version or of any later version published by the Free Software
Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of the
GNU General Public License, you may choose any version ever published
by the Free Software Foundation.

If the Program specifies that a proxy can decide which future
versions of the GNU General Public License can be used, that proxy's
public statement of acceptance of a version permanently authorizes you
to choose that version for the Program.

Later license versions may give you additional or different
permissions. However, no additional obligations are imposed on any
author or copyright holder as a result of your choosing to follow a
later version.

and the equivalent section in gpl2

9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions
of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will
be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to
address new problems or concerns.

Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program
specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any
later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions
either of that version or of any later version published by the Free
Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of
this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
Foundation.

Which is similar in GPL1 (section 7)

"similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns"
* "similar in spirit" isn't defined in section 0 (Definitions)
* "new problems or concerns" is the FSF problems/concerns - not yours

"Later license versions may give you additional or different permissions."
"additional or different permissions" is not restricted to the code, so the FSF could (for instance) decide to give permission to freely use any trademarks contained within the code... thus making it difficult for end users to distinguish between the original and a knock-off filled with malware, adware, crypto currency miners or data collection.
That is just an example; it could be more innocuous or way worse (I recall an EULA that transferred ownership of your immortal soul)

FWIW, I pointed out last year that the FSF hadn't even trademarked their name; thus leaving the whole GPL vulnerable to being taken over by one of the many Microsoft shell companies by simply renaming itself and grabbing the trademark. Imagine a GPL4 rewritten by Microsoft and the Chinese government. Thankfully they (the FSF) finally got a trademark in May of this year, so that's one less thing to worry about - that doesn't prevent bad actors from infiltrating the FSF board.

We need an MIT-style license for copyleft, something that makes aggregation into a combined work less complicated - not moreso. As it stands, the GPL has so much poorly written legalese that individuals mostly ignore it and thus corporations would have to audit the whole code base to ensure compliance, so most of them just avoid it even if they would have no issues with contributing their code (Lawyers are expensive)

for example, here is a modified version of the MIT license

Code: Select all

/** MIT+
Copyright <YEAR> <COPYRIGHT HOLDER>

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of
this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in
the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to
use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies
of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do
so, subject to the following conditions:

  * The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
    all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
  * The complete corresponding source code is made freely available to all
    recipients and copyright holders of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR
COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER
IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN
CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
*/

Note the "copyright holders" addition. This basically makes it stronger copyleft than the AGPL, more inclusive than the LGPL and easier to understand than anything from the FSF.

[musher0]

Hi.

This sub-topic may be related -- to a point:
(If not, Flash, please transfer this post where it belongs. TIA.)

The GPL and other licences having originated in the USA and having been
written according to US Law, how valid are they internationally? Are they
worth using by non-Americans?

I have read about a case in France where the Court there recognized that the
GPL text could be considered a French regulation (don't ask me how?!), and
the French Court accepted to hear the case.

In Canada? Blank. No idea. I think we never had such a case.

For example, a non-American programmer uses the GPL, the MIT or what-
ever. A problem pops up with the code in say, Canada, or Italy. Is then the
licence used by the programmer even worth the disk sector it resides on?

I'm thinking about myself of course, but surely many others are in this case.
PuppyLinux is of Australian origin, and many Australian programmers
contribute to it, as well as some Austrians, Germans, Finns, etc. etc.
All using American-based licences?

Could the national branches of major software companies be used to ignore
or go around the licences?

As a fictitious example: a national branch of Adobe (or whichever int'l
software company) could use licenced code from say, (as I said this is a
fictious example) fellow forum members vovchik (based in Austria, AFAIK),
or Smokey01 (an Australian), or pemasu (a Finlander), and laugh all the
way to the bank?

I mean they'd be saving a lot in programmers' honoraria / salary, using the
excuse that licence X is a US Contract of no value in another country.

Does anybody know how that works? TIA for any insight.

[technosaurus]

Does anybody know how that works? TIA for any insight.

That might work in Eritrea see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... agreements

[musher0]

In San Marino too. (Thanks for the ref.)

[chillinfart]

Electronic voting will take here tomorrow and i was discussing the GPL dilemma due to secrecy of authorities about the software. They changed it to customized android forks, but no code is shown, even kernel, what violates GPL.

Then i found why GPL exists. When the case was released, devs excused the Apache preference by Google for Android, ignoring Linux kernel is GPL only license atm.

Is a matter of transparency, it says how open or not is a project. And this case is dark.

Hi.

This sub-topic may be related -- to a point:
(If not, Flash, please transfer this post where it belongs. TIA.)

The GPL and other licences having originated in the USA and having been
written according to US Law, how valid are they internationally? Are they
worth using by non-Americans?

I have read about a case in France where the Court there recognized that the
GPL text could be considered a French regulation (don't ask me how?!), and
the French Court accepted to hear the case.

In Canada? Blank. No idea. I think we never had such a case.

For example, a non-American programmer uses the GPL, the MIT or what-
ever. A problem pops up with the code in say, Canada, or Italy. Is then the
licence used by the programmer even worth the disk sector it resides on?

I'm thinking about myself of course, but surely many others are in this case.
PuppyLinux is of Australian origin, and many Australian programmers
contribute to it, as well as some Austrians, Germans, Finns, etc. etc.
All using American-based licences?

Could the national branches of major software companies be used to ignore
or go around the licences?

As a fictitious example: a national branch of Adobe (or whichever int'l
software company) could use licenced code from say, (as I said this is a
fictious example) fellow forum members vovchik (based in Austria, AFAIK),
or Smokey01 (an Australian), or pemasu (a Finlander), and laugh all the
way to the bank?

I mean they'd be saving a lot in programmers' honoraria / salary, using the
excuse that licence X is a US Contract of no value in another country.

Does anybody know how that works? TIA for any insight.

According to one case (ScummVM vs Atari) and some legal analysis from my land, copyright laws can rule open source licenses too.

In the case with electronic voting described above, is the same situation than violating the EULA from M$ software. Even worse being a public state-wide event where this software is used.

[musher0]

(...)
According to one case (ScummVM vs Atari) and some legal analysis from my land, copyright laws can rule open source licenses too.
(...)

Reassuring; good to know.
Thanks, chillinfart.

[nosystemdthanks]

a few points--

1. it is shameful that anyone claiming to believe in "open source" thinks osi/open source would even exist without software under the gpl and the fsf to bootstrap it (i understand theyre trying to replace it all, but treating the gpl as some awful thing seems to forget that the gpl and fsf gave birth to open source-- even if its the bastard child.)

the gpl created your open source, in the same way that pagan beliefs created judaism and judaism created christianity. go back in time and delete the mean awful gpl, and the thing you believe in simply wont exist. not a call for respect, just for perspective, eh? its so "terrible" that it resulted in everything you care about.

2. despite not believeing in free software, and being one of the principal drivers of its rival, open source, linus torvalds says putting the kernel was one of the best decisions he ever made.

as a result-- the linux kernel benefits from contributions from everyone who redistributes the linux kernel with their own changes to it. without the gpl, that might well not happen. unlike with bsd, there is no movement to make the linux kernel permissively licensed.

3. musher-- you want credit for your one-liners because of the reasearch you did, but do your one-liners have footnotes that credit the places you learned the tricks from? again, not a call for change, just for perspective. one-liners are often not copyrightable. a collection of them could be.

good thing, too. otherwise someone could claim copyright on the line that mounts initrd in all distros or your puppy sfs, and then youd have to develop different tools as a workaround.

4. i happen to think the gpl is too tedious for use with small enough programs. so does the fsf, actually. we might have different ideas about what constitutes a small program-- i public domain code that has > 1000 lines. i consider that a small program.

5. the link someone provided which was asked what this has to do with the gpl--

gpl 2 (the linux kernel license) doesnt have a clause that prevents the user from rescinding the license.

this means you could spend a year or two building a puppy derivative, only to have the author of some of the gpl 2 licensed code revoke your right to redistribute it. some people are threatening to do so under certain circumstances.

6. if linus hadnt made a fuss about tivoisation and the inability to incorporate proprietary code, the same benefits he enjoys with contributions back (the ones he is happy he chose gpl for) might go even farther, and we all might enjoy that.

instead, he championed the gpl 2 and encouraged everyone to reject the gpl 3, meaning that now we have this situation where you can lose the legal right to redistribute puppy if some author of gpl2 code revokes your right to redistribute the kernel with their contributions.

the good news is, they probably dont have the legal power to go after you for it-- so they would sooner go after the linux kernel developers themselves.

the bad news is-- this means that microsoft could go after anyone who incorporates microsoft-authored gpl 2 licensed code in the future, if they simply rescind the license to their code.

in other words-- microsoft could rescind their (very few) gpl 2 contributions to the kernel, and after that treat the distribution of any distro that uses an older kernel as "pirated software."

the gpl 2 needs to be retired now. gpl 3 has a clause that prevents this nonsense.

obviously, you cant retire gpl 2 code unless each author rereleases under gpl 3, or unless they had taken the advice of saying "gpl 2 or later."

which means that any monopoly that contributes code that is incorporated into the linux kernel could hold it hostage later on. source-based distros are unaffected, binary distros could be forced by court order to take older versions offline.

that probably wont happen. its a huge vulnerability though-- one that can be addressed by having an implied non-revocation clause in the gpl 2 interpreted by a court case, or by not using gpl 2 and upgrading to 3 wherever possible.

the vulnerability may not be exploited-- but some authors are already threatening to.

this also means that people can stack requirements onto gpl 2 by threatening to revoke it otherwise. which the gpl 2 explicitly forbids, but then fails via this giant loophole.

7. personal note: i use cc0 for almost everything, and like gpl3, it has a non-revoking clause so i cant hold my code hostage this way.

but cc0 is not the thing you want to use, if credit/attribution is important to you. you should probably use apache 2 (permissive) or gpl 3 (copyleft.)

8. if you dont like the gpl, it is easy to avoid-- just dont use any software written by authors who want you to not make proprietary derivatives of their software. that means saying goodbye to the linux kernel and hello to bsd. its a very nice os, and we will miss you. linus will miss you. the fsf may miss you. rms will probably not.

but without the gpl, your linux kernel would be lower quality and have far fewer contributions. something worth considering.

9. finally, im against the contributor covenant. its a fascist solution to a real problem-- and im not in favour of the problem, im against fascism as a solution.

that doesnt change the fact that the method contributors have chosen to fight this reveals a giant problem with with gpl 2 itself. creative commons fixed this in all of their licenses pretty much from day one-- because they know youre not really free to use the code for any purpose, if the right can be revoked at any time for any reason.

this is the best reason to upgrade to gpl 3 that ive ever heard, and there are a few.

[rufwoof]

OpenBSD licence is nice and simple ...

https://cvsweb.openbsd.org/src/share/mi ... e?rev=HEAD

Basically says "here's the source code ... do whatever you like with it, but if you have problems - it's your problem". So you can even take BSD'd code and turn it into a proprietary application if you so wish.

[musher0]

Hello all.

Their disclaimer part is better written, clearer (IMO), more detailed, than
that of the other licenses.

(Please cover your kids' ears for the next sentence:)
But to me, that OpenBSD license is sort of a "You can even use this
software as toilet paper if you wish" license...

Very subjective, but I don't like it.

~~~~~~~~~
Edit, 5 minutes later:

Come to think of it, are you automatically hung high and dry if you use
GPL'd software on OpenBSD?

BFN.

[nosystemdthanks]

But to me, that OpenBSD license is sort of a "You can even use this
software as toilet paper if you wish" license...

actually all free software can be used as toilet paper, whether under the gpl license or not. for two reasons:

freedom 0 is "the freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose." this includes printing it out and using it as toilet paper.

all free software licenses, whether copyleft or permissive, allow this. since flushing it down the toilet doesnt count as conveying the work, gpl 3 restrictions are not even triggered by using it as toilet paper, but wouldnt apply if they were.

permissive licenses also allow you to use the work as toilet paper, provided that you include the proper copyright notice.

version 2 of the gpl might raise some issues if authors use the kill switch, but that could also possibly be said for any free software license lacking a no-revocation clause. if you are concerned about that possibility, you are free to use cc0 works as toilet paper and avoid even these extremely hypothetical scenarios.

of course open source will tell you that companies find permissive licenses to be softer on the skin, while free software advocates will tell you its more important to preserve your right to use the bathroom and have all the source code needed to use, study, change and share your toilet.

personally i think eulas are better for toilet paper, but to each his own.

the question you should be asking is-- if you use agpl-licensed software as toilet paper, are you then required to upload a stool sample to a public server?

if so, then what instructions should it include for compiling, and is stool considered a binary or do you have to upload copies of the same things you ate as the source code for the changes you made?

these are probably also unfounded concerns however, as flushing it down the toilet is not considered conveying the work, nor is it considered running it from a server.

Come to think of it, are you automatically hung high and dry if you use
GPL'd software on OpenBSD?

no, the bsd community uses tar and feathers-- as long as it is a version of tar that is under a permissive license and compiled with clang instead of gcc.

i dont really begrudge this aspect of the bsd community. i think of their love of permissive licensing as more of a backup plan/alternative than a plot to destroy everything that free software works for.

an exception to all this is whether americans can use software from their phones as toilet paper. under the dmca, unlocking your phone to get the software from it directly could trigger the anti-circumvention clause, which means that if there is a year where there is not a specific exception made, you may need to ask the librarian of congress for permission to wipe. you can thank bill clinton for that-- it was his administration that passed the dmca.

hollywood frequently lobbies canadas government to import this nonsense, so check your own laws before you assume they are different. i note with pleasure that so far-- i am unaware of hollywood succeeding at passing bills like that. but i certainly dont trust trudeau with this.

this is not a snipe at canada, and i wish you all the best in this regard. there is absolutely no reason that hollywood should be given the opportunity to control anything outside of california. they are some of the worlds worst legislators, and they are perfectly welcome to find another planet to bother instead at any time they wish to do so.

i am not a lawyer or proctologist, and this does not constitute legal advice or medical advice.

[rufwoof]

no, the bsd community uses tar and feathers-- as long as it is a version of tar that is under a permissive license and compiled with clang instead of gcc.

i dont really begrudge this aspect of the bsd community. i think of their love of permissive licensing as more of a backup plan/alternative than a plot to destroy everything that free software works for.

gcc move to (more restrictive) gpl3 meant FreeBSD having to stay with a older gpl2 version of gcc .. and as that increasingly became outdated a move was made over to clang. Pretty much a necessity to fulfil commercial usage requirements/regulations.

OpenBSD do not permit blobs (lack of visibility/security auditing), hence nvidia is pretty much out. That it doesn't run on such a wider base of hardware as Linux isn't deemed a issue to those that appreciate its quality just have to be more selective with hardware purchases (i.e. nvidia's loss/radeon's gain).

[nosystemdthanks]

i appreciate the additional details and insight, though its also a political difference, not just a practical one.

its a political difference im ok with, as i said, but the bsd community is also pretty harshly critical of the gpl sometimes, even writing songs that deeply mock rms.

its also possible those are "good clean fun" and no more a reflection of how they feel than a weird al parody. but honestly, id sooner believe its somewhere between the two. for the fsf, the decisions/priorities bsd makes are certainly political. but i think they are somewhat political to the bsd community as well. perhaps a little less so.

[musher0]

nosystemdthanks wrote:

hollywood frequently lobbies canadas government to import this nonsense,
so check your own laws before you assume they are different. i note with
pleasure that so far-- i am unaware of hollywood succeeding at passing bills
like that. but i certainly dont trust trudeau with this.

Hi, nosystemdthanks.

So far so good. The new NAFTA (whatever its new name is) still has the
cultural exception clause.

French-Canadians know all too well what kind of cultural bulldozer hit the
Cajuns in Louisiana. So we are forever on the defensive on the cultural front.

Also I think "colonialist" is one adjective Pres. Trump would not have
risked being added to the list of adjectives he is already being called by
his opponents.

Besides the language barrier, French Canada's star-system can be traced
to the early 1900's, so it creates a 2nd barrier to Hollywoodian influence.

(I apologize in advance to my English-speaking compatriots if I have the
following facts wrong.)

English Canada was not long to catch on and develop its own culture.
I believe that the English-Canadian star-system started during Gordon
Lightfoot's era, and fine-arts culture very likely with the Group of Seven
(1920's). Plus our National Film Board (a federal institution) has existed
since 1939.

As much as Canadians appreciate well-done American movies, we know
those movies are offsprings of a culture that's quite different from ours.

About the Trudeau gov't, it was elected because Canadians had had
enough of the previous gov't impoverishing the working poor. (IMO)

As long as he doesn't try anything funny to sabotage what's left of the
middle class, I think he's good for another term.

Plus he has a winning ace in his gov't in the person of Chrystia Freeland,
our current External Affairs Minister. I don't know how she and her team
managed to fence off some of Trump's most voracious and often
unfounded demands concerning NAFTA, but they did it. It could have
been worse.

BFN.

[jamesbond]

i appreciate the additional details and insight, though its also a political difference, not just a practical one.

You made my day
I thoroughly enjoyed your treatises in this thread and agree to most of the points you made. i couldn't say it better myself.

its a political difference im ok with, as i said, but the bsd community is also pretty harshly critical of the gpl sometimes, even writing songs that deeply mock rms.

Yeah the good fat lot, all of them, considering that the very thing that got RMS started was they closed the source for Unix (BSD *is* Unix). RMS starting GPL sparked a movement on their own side to keep the BSD open.

It's okay to disagree with RMS to but deny the fact that he _started_ the whole thing is just history-rewriting.

[nosystemdthanks]

RMS starting GPL sparked a movement on their own side to keep the BSD open.

It's okay to disagree with RMS to but deny the fact that he _started_ the whole thing is just history-rewriting.

i agree, and thats how i ended up on the free software side. open source bills itself as more reasonable, practical, and inclusive-- and free software as naive idealism.

i started on the open source side, but facts mattered. facts and history re-writing are bound to face each other down sooner or later, and i dont like being lied to.

when open source claims to be more reasonable, they are talking about false compromises and favouring unwritten rules over stuffy-sounding written ones. theyre talking about being more reasonable on the surface, theyre talking about appearances and less about true nature. and it works, for the same reason that monopolies gain footholds.

when they talk about being more practical, they mean more practical for monopolies who want to participate halfway and still get full kudos just for showing up-- when they talk about being more inclusive, its that old idea of monopolising what "inclusive" means and kicking out everyone who disagrees-- which in practice is often more exclusive and proves to be really just hype and lies.

all of which i enjoyed for plenty of years under microsofts regime, thanks anyway.

yes, "floss" is an acronym of a portmanteau, or a portmanteau of two acronyms. but it implies that you can be a free software advocate and open source will be cool about it-- and not spew venom at you collectively for your politics like linus torvalds does-- and that they wont constantly create a version of history that writes you out of the picture and says nothing when people ridiculously credit torvalds with everything done for all the years prior to linux existing.

it fits their "monopoly is ok" narrative. to be honest, anybody that thinks monopolies are ok and thats the same thing as free software-- is deeply naive or at least, deeply misinformed.

to then look at the people spending lots of money and time and dedication deliberately misinforming them and not being pissed off about being lied to for a few years-- is also naive. but i maintain that open source isnt all bad. its deeply dishonest and rotten at the core, and a lot of good people are associated with it regardless-- who should take another look at the lies theyre swallowing every day.

a lot of the "big concerns" (perhaps all but one or two) that people have about the gpl for example, are just people that know better saying "what if, what if, what if?" until everyone else is curious too. a lot of it can be fixed with 10 minutes of research that isnt done, because "what if" is repeated until it drowns out the easy-to-find answers to "what if."

free software isnt perfect, but its a great deal more respectable in this regard.

now, am i in favour of some middle ground that isnt built on re-writing history and blaming people for being honest and having written rules-- while still offering alternatives? basically-- what open source claims but doesnt deliever?

sure. maybe free software is better than that too-- but part of freedom is letting people decide for themselves and organise themselves more. the fsf is a little too top-down for my taste. we need them, they deserve more credit despite (and frankly robbed of by) the dishonest marginalisation and co-opting that open source has orchestrated and linus torvalds has worn like a crown-- but people who disagree still have a right to do so.

what they dont have a right to do is rewrite history in a way that is so self-serving, you cant swallow it forever if you like facts and have perspective. certainly they have a right to be mistaken-- but what theyre doing is training an army of corporate shills.

im pro-business, but any monopoly built on and propped up by misinformation is bad for society and nothing to do with freedom. and lets face it, thats what it generally takes to sustain a monopoly-- misinformation.

open source is simply a lie. maybe not the bruce perens version-- but that version was his own misconception. it was once mine, too. its sad that it has so much hold over good people.

open source really means that its immature and hateful to put a dollar sign in micro$oft but you can call the people who are being more honest "neckbeards" because the truth is-- youve aligned yourself with one, and against the other. so you are trained to defend the corporation and attack the individual.

perhaps it should be called open $ource, then. but only because we dont have any punctuation that implies monopoly-- only shills. its not because i hate dollars. i only hate the love of money ranked in importance over the love of people or a more honest assessment of history. that much i find pretty repulsive.

i have plenty of critiques for my own side-- if people are going to make a mantra of "free as in free speech" they should care a little more about the latter. it can be a bit stifling at times. i wouldnt say open source is better in this regard. both sides make it clear that you are generally free to agree with them.

Plus our National Film Board (a federal institution) has existed
since 1939.

im a big fan of the nfb, as well as tvo. if it comes down to scrapping the nfb or scrapping nafta-- keep the nfb. trade agreements like nafta, cafta and acta will funnel canadas economy directly to china. china doesnt keep its side of trade agreements. dont take it from me, ask (canadian brett) gaylor how it really works. or michael geist.

[musher0]

@nosystemdthanks

Your DMCA is how the US of A hooked up with the WIPO Accord (q.v. the
wikipedia article about it). As you say, it was passed under the Clinton
Admin.

It had been in the air internationally for some time, though, since
1967 to be exact. Forget Hollywood, CA, as point of origin of this int'l
legislation: Paris, France, or Geneva, Switzerland, are more like it.

Almost all countries represented at the UN are members of WIPO. To
spell it out, Canada is a member, but not Vanuatu.

If you download -- through any of your devices! -- the two noticeably
non-famous movies I wrote music for in my twenties, I expect to receive
a royalty cheque from you. Or do it from Vanuatu.

BFN.

[nosystemdthanks]

i miss wipo, and youre not watching closely enough (imo.)

wipo is much more reasonable than nafta, cafta, acta-- all of which push for more restrictions (and fewer safeguards and safe harbours) than wipo. so youve been sold a bill of goods.

this isnt personal, i really do miss wipo and intensely dislike these newer more hideous versions of it. thats the only reason for any passionate language on the topic. theyre some of the worst decisions made in american politics in the past 100 years-- as well as large constitutional threats. the constitution should outweigh trade agreements. in theory they do, in practice-- we are still waiting.

freedom of speech and this level of copyright expansion cannot both happen-- one denies the other its existence. for most of the time this country has had a constitution, the 1st amendment was not really bothered by copyright. today there is a constant struggle between them. its not the amendment thats broken, its modern copyright law that needs to be struck down. but i dont expect your sympathy there. older copyright law? not so bothered by it. it worked until they went berserk with it.

If you download -- through any of your devices! -- the two noticeably
non-famous movies I wrote music for in my twenties, I expect to receive
a royalty cheque from you. 8) Or do it from Vanuatu. :(

im much more comfortable with the idea of tax-supported artists than the orwellian surveillance state that pretends to ensure you will get paid for your work. fortunately for you, both exist. i am dedicated to alternatives that are less oppressive, but at least jaron lanier agrees with you partway.

every industry that has claimed royalties has waged war on the same sort of so-called-piracy that they built their own industry on. you might not understand unless you wrote sheet music when that was the only way to publish a song-- and watched your work get appropriated (without royalty) by the piano-player scroll business and the record industry, both of which came later. (as did radio.)

so many concepts of "fairness" are constructed from a position of sheer hypocrisy, its a wonder i believe in fairness at all.

additional concepts are built on the myth of originality-- which is often just bunk.

if patents worked like modern copyright, then artists would only be allowed to play songs than the instrument inventors approved of.

in fact, patents on rare occasion have worked that way-- before hollywood could truly establish itself, it had to get far away from edisons thugs! his patents-- you could barely use his equipment to make films except on his terms!

everyone gets by on special pleading-- not on fairness. theres nothing fair about "intellectual property." pray that artists are never saddled with it-- you get to use all those instruments that are in the public domain (including the piano, the alphabet, and the pen.)

if js bachs estate recouped all the royalties from the past few centuries, maybe more artists would be looking for alternatives, too. youre nothing but a bunch of pirates.