C++11 & The Long-Term Viability Of GCC Is Questioned

[XorEaxEax]

in this respect, duplicated work and ideology intermingled with code development, are a worse evil than corporations, and corporation reusing the code is an intended effect, not a "theft"...

Nonsense. When a company/individual takes open source and enhances it while keeping those enhancements proprietary it requires the exact same 'duplication of effort' to reimplement those enhancements as open source or even in another proprietary setting. GPL prevents proprietary use but at the same time it prevents a great deal of the very 'duplication of effort' which you just described by requiring that derivatives (enhancements, modifications) be available as source code.

This is the type of cognitive dissonance I only seem to find in the reasoning of BSD advocates, proprietary is just fine and dandy while GPL is somehow bad?

It makes no sense. Now I don't agree with the notion that everything has to be open source, but I can understand it logically from a 'philosophical' standpoint, I don't agree that everything should be proprietary, but I can understand it logically from a 'corporate' standpoint.

But saying that from an open source perspective, proprietary is fine but GPL is somehow bad? You'd really have to be either a proprietary troll or a pure-bread BSD zealot to reach such a conclusion.

If you accept the notion that programmers want money in exchange for their code, how could you possibly not accept the notion that programmers want to have changes made to their code available to them in exhange? This is what they get with GPL.

[nslay]

Nonsense. When a company/individual takes open source and enhances it while keeping those enhancements proprietary it requires the exact same 'duplication of effort' to reimplement those enhancements as open source or even in another proprietary setting. GPL prevents proprietary use but at the same time it prevents a great deal of the very 'duplication of effort' which you just described by requiring that derivatives (enhancements, modifications) be available as source code.

Yeah, except that most companies would prefer to continue to pull updates from open source. They'd have to merge those changes at every update either way they do it ... that's not very practical. Unless their work must be kept secret, I'd imagine they'd try to push their changes back to open source.

This is the type of cognitive dissonance I only seem to find in the reasoning of BSD advocates, proprietary is just fine and dandy while GPL is somehow bad?

Proprietary is fine. There is nothing wrong with buying software.

GPL is not necessarily bad either. It has some strategic uses (e.g. see how Oracles sells BDB or how Nokia sells Qt). It's bad for developers though, and for several reasons listed in this thread and discussed in Phoronix articles. I personally don't subscribe to the GPL idea of freedom either and as a developer, I would rather not surrender my right to license choice. In my eyes, GPL is not free because it deprives developers their freedom to choose their own license. Of course, I have a choice not to link with GPL software and either have to find more permissive software, or write my own (and writing your own when a solution already exists is a tragedy!).

It makes no sense. Now I don't agree with the notion that everything has to be open source, but I can understand it logically from a 'philosophical' standpoint, I don't agree that everything should be proprietary, but I can understand it logically from a 'corporate' standpoint.

But saying that from an open source perspective, proprietary is fine but GPL is somehow bad? You'd really have to be either a proprietary troll or a pure-bread BSD zealot to reach such a conclusion.

You're a Linux/GPL/freetard zealot. You're probably just a luser and don't write software or have any experience with the license problems from either an open source or corporate point of view.

If you accept the notion that programmers want money in exchange for their code, how could you possibly not accept the notion that programmers want to have changes made to their code available to them in exhange? This is what they get with GPL.

Hey, the companies have the right to choose how their intellectual property is to be used. They pay the software developers to write the code. It is intellectual property of the company and not the developers. Just like contractors who work on your house don't automatically have a right to enter your house at will (OK, it's not exactly the same situation).

If a company wishes to open source their software or work on GPL codebases, that is their choice and don't you forget it. You should not feel entitled. It is by the graces of the software developers/companies that you get anything at all.

[brosis]

Proprietary is fine. There is nothing wrong with buying software.

Everything is wrong with it. This is the reason OUYA exists. Buying software is wrong, paying for effort is right. Deal with it.

GPL is not necessarily bad either. It has some strategic uses (e.g. see how Oracles sells BDB or how Nokia sells Qt).

Its not GPL, its opencore. And it sucks.

In my eyes, GPL is not free because it deprives developers their freedom to choose their own license.

GPL does not deprive copyright holder to choose their license.
However, GPL prohibits to close software down the same way EULA prohibits to open source up.

Of course, I have a choice not to link with GPL software and either have to find more permissive software, or write my own (and writing your own when a solution already exists is a tragedy!).

Yeah, as a proprietary developer you are not new to reinventing the bicycle over and over again.
You are also lying that you would choose a permissive license - because you write proprietary. And yes, you will gladly seek for "permissive" software to steal and close down.

You're a Linux/GPL/freetard zealot. You're probably just a luser and don't write software or have any experience with the license problems from either an open source or corporate point of view.

Corporations differ exactly as people differ. For example, you are a bitch and probably work as bitch in a whorehouse - nothing is gonna change that.
For example, your whole job exists in form of either reinventing the bicycles or stealing from insecure places (like BSD) - both cases to be taken away immediately as "intellectual property", so your next company requires you to redo the same. Thats all - instead on building up upon existing foundation, you reinvent bicycles and request money for this as an expense. A serious job you do.

Hey, the companies have the right to choose how their intellectual property is to be used. They pay the software developers to write the code. It is intellectual property of the company and not the developers. Just like contractors who work on your house don't automatically have a right to enter your house at will (OK, it's not exactly the same situation).

Yeah, this is exactly the retarded scenario why everyone had his ass delivered to windows and why the only acceptable drivers for nvidia and amd are the closed source one, its exactly the problem why we can't get many OpenGL features in MESA.

There is no such thing as "intellectual property" - its against the constitution of United States to privatize the speech, its against humanity to privatize the scientific methods. If you invented it, publish it under your name and make it a good use to people instead of reinventing the bicycles at each door.

"Intellectual property" is for the people, for developers, for scientists, not for corporate cases and asshats like you. Knowledge how to build the house is not the house itself!
The fact that such companies exist is crime of government allowing it and people giving them their money without awareness of their actions as they invest in ever growing cancer.

The correct way is for customers to pay the development entity for expenses compensation, the software and technology in question is completely free to use, preferably protected by GPL or LGPL against asshats like you.

[nslay]

Yeah, as a proprietary developer you are not new to reinventing the bicycle over and over again.

I'm both (and I prefer BSDL). You're probably also a luser too (my guess is that most freetards are). Write some software and gain a new perspective.

[brosis]

I'm both (and I prefer BSDL). You're probably also a luser too (my guess is that most freetards are). Write some software and gain a new perspective.

So you are proprietary developer, because BSD is nonfree anarchy license with "freedom" advertized but not protected. Your guess is right, loving freedom I am ok to be called a freetard. Its much better than being a whore like you, who repeatedly codes his own problems.


Anyways, it astonishing to find how much dirt has exposed itself recently all of the sudden:
* the BSDM whores, who say freedom but not mean it and are happy to thrust a knife in its ex-friend GPL back
* the proprietary whores, with all sorts of "you owe us all" BS

Imps go rage. Must be Linux gaining popularity on the desktop. Good, its a good day for house cleaning.

[nslay]

So you are proprietary developer, because BSD is nonfree anarchy license with "freedom" advertized but not protected. Your guess is right, loving freedom I am ok to be called a freetard. Its much better than being a whore like you, who repeatedly codes his own problems.

Freedom extends to everyone (including companies) and every use case. I don't see the problem.

If a company or independent software developer(s) decides to incorporate permissive software into a proprietary product, it does not make that permissive software any less open than it was to begin with. If they want to make their own private modifications to it, then they are free to do so by their own sweat. Why must we force them to produce their modifications and why is this considered protection when the original work is still open source (EDIT: Oh and let's not forget that we'll force them to produce their source code)?

[brosis]

Freedom extends to everyone (including companies) and every use case. I don't see the problem.

Then let me point you at the problem. Define the freedom:
a) Ability to do anything
b) Ability to do anything that does persist

In my opinion, if something is truly free, the freedom to remove freedom should be banned. Like fascism is banned in all freedom countries, because freedom to choose fascism will inevitably lead to loose of freedom.
Hence: You are free to do anything except removing freedom. Thats the GPL.
The BSD is you are free to do anything. Thats anarchy, its not freedom. Anarchies do not last long, they almost instantly fall into martial law of most potent, which is not freedom.

We can project it into code:
GPL is "you are free to walk into any memory address except walking into others memory address to sabotage their freedom of movement"
BSD is "you are free to walk into any memory address". Several nanoseconds later, all memory address is occupied by some zombie process and there is no freedom of movement in system.

If a company or independent software developer(s) decides to incorporate permissive software into a proprietary product, it does not make that permissive software any less open than it was to begin with. If they want to make their own private modifications to it, then they are free to do so by their own sweat. Why must we force them to produce their modifications and why is this considered protection when the original work is still open source (EDIT: Oh and let's not forget that we'll force them to produce their source code)?

Yes, this is true. They like to produce closed source anti-freedom software, that incorporates A LOT of permissive software. They like it even better, if they can patent this software or otherwise make it exclusive to them. GPL does not deal with slavers, that's the point. But otherwise, no one is limited or dictated of the ways to monetize the software in GPL.

Also the "private modifications" you talk about are garbage, because your very own EULA imposes much much more restrictions than GPL does. And if you don't want to opensource your "private work", keep it to yourself, lock it up, let it rot. You know, its a general rule of information, information is multiplied via reusal, so go ahead, keep it private.

And if you want to make use of someone's "sweat", but refuse to reveal your "modifications", then you are better off with BSD license. Nothing wrong with that, just more restrictive software taking money away from uninformed customers and polluting the climate with own useless noise.

[nslay]

Then let me point you at the problem. Define the freedom:
a) Ability to do anything
b) Ability to do anything that does persist

In my opinion, if something is truly free, the freedom to remove freedom should be banned. Like fascism is banned in all freedom countries, because freedom to choose fascism will inevitably lead to loose of freedom.
Hence: You are free to do anything except removing freedom. Thats the GPL.
The BSD is you are free to do anything. Thats anarchy, its not freedom. Anarchies do not last long, they almost instantly fall into martial law of most potent, which is not freedom.

We can project it into code:
GPL is "you are free to walk into any memory address except walking into others memory address to sabotage their freedom of movement"
BSD is "you are free to walk into any memory address". Several nanoseconds later, all memory address is occupied by some zombie process and there is no freedom of movement in system.

As I said, if proprietary software incorporates permissive software, said permissive software is still open source. It does not amount to fascism or any of the non-sense above.

I mean, there are several examples of this. Matlab uses LAPACK for example. LAPACK is still actively maintained and open source.

Yes, this is true. They like to produce closed source anti-freedom software, that incorporates A LOT of permissive software. They like it even better, if they can patent this software or otherwise make it exclusive to them. GPL does not deal with slavers, that's the point. But otherwise, no one is limited or dictated of the ways to monetize the software in GPL.

Can you provide an example? You can't patent an algorithm that has already been publicly disclosed ... this a bunch of hot air. However, if an open source developer (regardless of license) implement a patented algorithm without the consent of the patent owner, even this developer would be in a great deal trouble.

I think software patents are annoying as much as anyone else, but that's just how it is. Use Google Patents to check first.

Furthermore, much of the software used in proprietary software is non-trivial. It would be impractical for the company to, "make it their own," unless some secrets were at stake. Besides, what do they gain by making open source software "their own?" From what I can tell, companies would rather pull updates from the open source project and submit their changes back. This is just practicality. Who would want to spend time merging private changes back into every update?

Also the "private modifications" you talk about are garbage, because your very own EULA imposes much much more restrictions than GPL does. And if you don't want to opensource your "private work", keep it to yourself, lock it up, let it rot. You know, its a general rule of information, information is multiplied via reusal, so go ahead, keep it private.

And the EULA of the proprietary software does not affect the permissive software used in the proprietary software. The permissive software remains open source and unencumbered.

And if you want to make use of someone's "sweat", but refuse to reveal your "modifications", then you are better off with BSD license. Nothing wrong with that, just more restrictive software taking money away from uninformed customers and polluting the climate with own useless noise.

If you're worried about a corporation profiting off your work and this really bothers you, then maybe the GPL is right for you. Unlike you, I'm not a zealot.

However, more often than not, proprietary software is non-trivial (otherwise, who would buy it?) and just makes use of simple algorithms (e.g. like SVD). I wouldn't consider using, for example, SVD, worthy of releasing the entire work as open source GPL software. Would you?

If you want your software to be widely adopted by the community (corporate, open source, government, etc...), a permissive license is a good way to go. Otherwise, it will likely rot in the open like some of the FSF software now (because many cannot use it due to its restrictions).

[brosis]

As I said, if proprietary software incorporates permissive software, said permissive software is still open source. It does not amount to fascism or any of the non-sense above.

Fascism is extreme form of private property, where the state is the corporation.

If proprietary software incorporates software with permissive license, it can either link to it dynamically or include it statically, ie build on top of it. LGPL covers the first case, BSD the both of them, so the difference is that GPL restricts mix of proprietary and opensource which is a good thing.

I mean, there are several examples of this. Matlab uses LAPACK for example. LAPACK is still actively maintained and open source.

Matlab is not opensource, so what is your point and why should some library interest me? Matlab is free to modify LAPACK heavily, to the cases where using the original LAPACK is barely not interesting for practical cases. In this case the only group who would seek interest in LAPACK would be students.
So you have this wonderful split:
Crappy opensource software and working proprietary software. This is what you get with BSD.
With GPL you would get working opensource software, because Matlab would be obligated to submit the changes back.

Can you provide an example? You can't patent an algorithm that has already been publicly disclosed ... this a bunch of hot air. However, if an open source developer (regardless of license) implement a patented algorithm without the consent of the patent owner, even this developer would be in a great deal trouble.

Siri, which was supposed to be available on wide range of platforms.
LAPACK, which is (un)dead due to a shitload of proprietary versions, talk about reinventing bicycles: MKL, ACML, Sun Performance Library, LAPACK by NAG, MLIB.

I think software patents are annoying as much as anyone else, but that's just how it is. Use Google Patents to check first.

Software patents are nothing different, but another way to extent proprietary behavior on information. Actually, they are good ... if they would last tops 5 years AND if patenting something trivial would be impossible.

It would be impractical for the company to, "make it their own," unless some secrets were at stake.

Secrets, secrets, everyone has a secret. Like babies - one keeps something secret, everybody starts to do the same.
If it would be illegal to produce "secrets" by means of license, no one would need to have any secrets. Just patent stuff away (and this also means - document it) for five years max, work hard on open implementation, collect money for the work and move on.

Besides, what do they gain by making open source software "their own?" From what I can tell, companies would rather pull updates from the open source project and submit their changes back. This is just practicality. Who would want to spend time merging private changes back into every update?

Linux kernel, look it up, great example.
Everybody profits from working together instead of building clones of clones and spending equal effort on maintenance, PLUS "intellectual protection", which drains resources and customer wallet and rights.

And the EULA of the proprietary software does not affect the permissive software used in the proprietary software. The permissive software remains open source and unencumbered.

BSD yes, after the code is cloned they are not obligated to give a damn about its parent.

If you're worried about a corporation profiting off your work and this really bothers you, then maybe the GPL is right for you. Unlike you, I'm not a zealot.

Oh, you are a zealot, your are a proprietary zealot - because you are throwing labels before anyone else. Somebody who is not a zealot, does not liter around with stereotypes.

I don't give a damn likewise of someone earning profit. I have a problem only when corporation collect my money and throw me an non-exclusive non-transferable personal right to use the blob for the specified task as an exchange. I did not offer them non-exclusive non-transferable right to use a sum of money for sort period, I gave them real thing, this is what I expect in exchange.
The other problem is that they literally crap on any of my rights and favor to form either monopoly or cartel, so no one can evade their taxes.

I prefer to pay directly to programmers for their work. Not for limited right to use, but for real work, and this is how stuff should be done.

However, more often than not, proprietary software is non-trivial (otherwise, who would buy it?) and just makes use of simple algorithms (e.g. like SVD). I wouldn't consider using, for example, SVD, worthy of releasing the entire work as open source GPL software. Would you?

Yeah, they want that "exclusivity", so you have proven my point above of why BSD licensed software will stay in its infant stage, whilst spawning a milliard of proprietary clones.
Btw, the SVD is not patented, so I see not problem why the software should not be released as GPL.

If you want your software to be widely adopted by the community (corporate, open source, government, etc...), a permissive license is a good way to go. Otherwise, it will likely rot in the open like some of the FSF software now (because many cannot use it due to its restrictions).

Like I said, I don't care about shitty fascist corporations, who want everything but give a addictive crap in return.
The good corporations have no problem adopting GPL and especially government favours GPL over any license, because:
a) proprietary counterparts cost more in long term
b) proprietary counterparts are insecure
c) government usually obligates any proprietary developer to open up the entire source due to security restrictions. GPL does not need this.
d) BSD or GPL for government applications are equally acceptable licenses. The only difference is that BSD can be taken and "misused" in any way, which does not interest government, if a,b,c criteria are met.

[XorEaxEax]

Yeah, except that most companies would prefer to continue to pull updates from open source. They'd have to merge those changes at every update either way they do it ... that's not very practical. Unless their work must be kept secret, I'd imagine they'd try to push their changes back to open source.

If they want to keep their enhancements as a competitive advantage (as is often the case with proprietary software as that is the only point real of being proprietary) they won't. And seriously with the tools at our disposal today it's not particularly hard to keep a separate out-of-tree fork unless the original project goes out of it's way to deliberately make it hard. And again as soon as there is no requirement to push enhancements back and there is even the smallest hint at a competitive advantage to be had by keeping enhancements to themselves, companies are usually very keen on doing so as it's in their dna as competitive entities.

It's bad for developers though,

It's bad for developer who wants to develop proprietary code using GPL licenced code, it's a great licence for developers who want to benefit from any enhancements made to their code.

GPL is not for proprietary code as it exists entirely to keep the source code in all it's derivative forms open, as such it's an anti-thesis to proprietary code.

I have a choice not to link with GPL software and either have to find more permissive software, or write my own (and writing your own when a solution already exists is a tragedy!).

No you don't have to, you choose to. Just like the creator of that GPL licenced code chose to licence it as GPL, because he/she likely wanted any modifications made to the code made available to them.

And how you can complain about the existance of open source code available under a licence you don't prefer as tragic, while defending proprietary code (which isn't available as open source at all) just reeks of bullshit.

I would rather not surrender my right to license choice.

You don't, you have the right to licence your code any way you want, however when you want to use someone else's code you are subject to their conditions. Just like with proprietary code (which you have no problem with), proprietary code typically says you can have a binary in return for monetary compensation. GPL says you can have source code in return for source code.

You're a Linux/GPL/freetard zealot. You're probably just a luser and don't write software or have any experience with the license problems from either an open source or corporate point of view.

On the contrary, I defend the right of permissive, copyleft licences AND proprietary code as I see that as a fundamental right of the programmer/owner of the code to choose for themselves. However what I often see is that of BSD zealots defending proprietary code while attacking GPL licenced code. That makes absolutely no sense.

Hey, the companies have the right to choose how their intellectual property is to be used. They pay the software developers to write the code. It is intellectual property of the company and not the developers.

And programmers have the right to choose how their code is to be used. They write it, and if they want any modifications to the code be made available then that is their right. WTF is your point here?

The discussion here is about the 'double morale' exposed in many BSD zealots who wants to frame proprietary as something good (keeping it closed is their right!!) while trying to frame GPL as something bad (as if it was somehow not a right to require derivates to remain open source!?!?).