Eric S. Raymond and his opinion of the GPL

[DMStraylight]

At 2:32, the missing word in the transcript is "dry-gulch", meaning to suddenly and violently ambush or betray, with connotations of intent to kill.

At 3:39, the missing phrase is "punishment is gaining us".

[icguilty]

more dosent meant more. more of wht. bad programmers. dnt fukk

[Julien1345]

What he said is exactly what i thought all the time. The open source community is strong and people don't need to fear that somebody will make a lot of money with their code.

[bozzioisgod44]

I like having both the Free Software AND OpenSource terms. Period.

[borkoboyanov]

Eric is right... GPL was needed to make people think twice before they do close sources (speech). Now BSD Licenses are getting more market incentive while the GPL'd software is used primarily as a weapon in corps. fighting other corps.

[CaptainMongles]

grinning and masturbating furiously

[a34j6hgwy]

@daemonpoet

I didn't focus solely on *my* freedom. (I posted as g98ay8ht3jg earlier, this is another account of mine). It really depends on how you define freedom anyway. But this whole idea about proprietary software being unethical is a pretty extraordinary claim (at least, to me), and therefore requires extraordinary evidence. As such, I suggest that the supporters of the philosophy behind the GPL to provide it to me/us.

[a34j6hgwy]

@a34j6hgwy

Addendum: Look at the TED talk "Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions" if you think science can't help us with such dilemmas. By the way, I also use the (2-clause) BSD license for my projects (and did so as well when I posted here about the GPL months ago, if it matters to anyone).

[GolumTR]

Tony:

"lose" is misspelled as "loose" in your transcript.

[g98ay8ht3jg]

Reciprocity is not the only point of the GPL. It is about protecting our valuable freedoms whether or not they are already protected by the market system. The GPL is a tool to support not only an elegant philosophy, but to create a world in which everybody can run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve software.

[g98ay8ht3jg]

Let me add, if we live in a world where everybody acts in compliance with the GPL all the time, we wouldn't need the GPL of course. Though, the GPL acts as a shield protecting us at the long-term. Not using the GPL only gives us a short-term boost.

[daemonpoet]

@g98ay8ht3jg Actually, if you think about it, the GPL does not protect YOUR freedom when you use a GPLed product. Instead, it protects everybody else. It does it to such an extent now that it is starting to become more like the monster it was trying to defeat. The sad reality of the GPL is that it would eliminate many things in this world that I love; especially video games. Why spend $20 million to make a graphical masterpiece when you'd only be able to sell one copy? that is I use BSD! :)

[smegingbastard]

When are you going to understand this? It was NEVER about superior business models or efficiency or quality of software. It is about protecting people's freedom!

The market will not protect anyone's freedom and I don't see the market punishing Microsoft and Apple. In fact, the big guns ARE the market.

If those criminals fear the GPL it is because they see us demanding the freedom they tried to suppress. And we are taking that freedom for ourselves by rejecting their software.

[Sunoco]

I like and enjoy Free Software. I think free software has a tendency to be better than proprietary software, however I don't see why it would be immoral to release only the binaries of a program without the source. :?

[smegingbastard]

Well I would suggest you look into the nature of Free Software then, find out why the concept was created and how it protects your freedom and how proprietary software takes it away. Regardless if the software has the tendency to better or worst.

Read or listen to RMS or Eben Moglen. If you already have and you don't agree with them or their work, then I guess your sense of morality is just different from mine.

[vitrr3x]

you are the best ^_^