Is Apple Now Blocking Contributions To GCC?

[Ragas]

Who are you to judge it?

anarki2 sad it a bit harsh, but I too think, that GPLv3 is a step in the wrong direction. It's not based on enhancing the freedom of people but on protecting and propagating Open Source. That doesn't seem so wrong at first sight but it also takes away many possibilities and I don't think it's a good Idea to try and force everyone to use OSS.

GPLv2 in comparison is build just to give people the right to change their Software.

[Yfrwlf]

anarki2 sad it a bit harsh, but I too think, that GPLv3 is a step in the wrong direction. It's not based on enhancing the freedom of people but on protecting and propagating Open Source. That doesn't seem so wrong at first sight but it also takes away many possibilities and I don't think it's a good Idea to try and force everyone to use OSS.

GPLv2 in comparison is build just to give people the right to change their Software.

GPL2 ensures developer freedom. GPL3 helps ensure user freedom. Well, and developer freedom some too, since they both effect each other, plus the anti-patent clauses in GPL3 help protect developers as well as users. Pretty simple really. You just have to ask yourself, "Do I want a company using my software in a way which removes freedoms for the user?" If you don't care, use GPL2, if you do, use GPL3.

[droidhacker]

anarki2 sad it a bit harsh, but I too think, that GPLv3 is a step in the wrong direction. It's not based on enhancing the freedom of people but on protecting and propagating Open Source. That doesn't seem so wrong at first sight but it also takes away many possibilities and I don't think it's a good Idea to try and force everyone to use OSS.

GPLv2 in comparison is build just to give people the right to change their Software.

The problem though is that as it stands, people **ARE** being forced willingly (that does sound funny, doesn't it?) to use binary software. This does need to be balanced out in some way, and forcing open source on the world may be helpful in at least some cases.

Just remember that freedom isn't actually natural. Most people support freedom in theory, but in practice prefer the organized control offered by the ball and chain. If that wasn't the case, then there would be an unorganized, but ABSOLUTE boycott of evil-DRM, taxes, patents, and Microshod... but instead, all we have is a loosly organized association of freedom-lovers who are cheered on in theory, but ignored when it is time to take a stand.

In my opinion, the only solution to this is to FORCE freedom on the world... and I think that that is what GPLv3 tries to accomplish. Those people who like freedom will accept it without being forced. Those people who like to be told what to think will accept it because you are telling them what to think and they need that.

I realize that both options are a contradiction, the big question is which contradiction is the least evil?

[colo]

gplv3 sucks, period.

What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

[colo]

Ah, I just read that Ragas is an uneducated moron, too.

[Ragas]

In my opinion, the only solution to this is to FORCE freedom on the world... and I think that that is what GPLv3 tries to accomplish.

And that is where I can't agree.
Because freedom also means the freedom not to be free. (the difference is that you are not-free by will and not free by force [which actually is another way to say not-free])

Ah, I just read that Ragas is an uneducated moron, too.

Thank you. I like it when people communicate with me on my level.

[RealNC]

In my opinion, the only solution to this is to FORCE freedom on the world...

Ever heard the work "oxymoron"? Notice how the word "moron" sneaks in there too. Don't think it's coincidence.

[deanjo]

And that is where I can't agree.
Because freedom also means the freedom not to be free. (the difference is that you are not-free by will and not free by force [which actually is another way to say not-free])

Exactly, this is freedom,

http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/

http://unlicense.org/

[pingufunkybeat]

NOBODY is forcing you to use GPLv3 software.

You are completely free to write your software yourself instead of taking GPL software and then devising tricks how to bypass the license and use other people's work against their wishes.

Freeloaders tend to hate GNU licenses. This doesn't bother me.

[bridgman]

Pretty simple really. You just have to ask yourself, "Do I want a company using my software in a way which removes freedoms for the user?"

That question becomes particularly interesting when the company is doing the coding