Free Software advancing : First GPL game released , Winamp and Milkdrop freed

[Asher]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
The problem with the BSD license is users do not need to add back to the existing base. Thus the GPL works much better in this regard.

The problem with the GPL is it forces you to fork over all of your original work as long as it even touches the GPLed code. Thus the BSD works much better in this regard.

The problem here is you look at the main failing point of the GPL as the best part of it. It's a political/ideological license that aims to virally produce free/open software. That is its goal. It's politically-charged at the expense of actual innovation and usefulness.

The BSD license is aimed at getting good code used everywhere possible...

If you have spent $160M for a compiler, chances are you don't need to use the GNU front-end (if there is such a thing).

Man, that figure is low-balled for a professional compiler. IBM spends much more than that over 5 years on compiler R&D.

That's also why GCC is MUCH, much slower.

The fact that you indicate that you're not sure compiler front-ends exists tells me just how little you actually know about the subject, as usual.

More FUD. You may use any GPL'ed code. Have you actually read the GNU Public License?

Yes, I have.

Please present your argument to me, I'm intrigued -- which part of the GPL lets me use any GPL code as part of my program without opensourcing it all? Say, use the GCC frontend as part of my compiler with a proprietary backend.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Asher
The problem with the GPL is it forces you to fork over all of your original work as long as it even touches the GPLed code.

Explain "touch."

Originally posted by Asher
The problem here is you look at the main failing point of the GPL as the best part of it. It's a political/ideological license that aims to virally produce free/open software. That is its goal. It's politically-charged at the expense of actual innovation and usefulness.

You just copied that from the Microsoft Big Book of FUD.

Originally posted by Asher
The BSD license is aimed at getting good code used everywhere possible...

As a result, Microsoft lifted the BSD TCP stack entirely without giving anything in return. How is that beneficial to the free and open source community?

Originally posted by Asher
Man, that figure is low-balled for a professional compiler. IBM spends much more than that over 5 years on compiler R&D.

So? Your original example is not about how much a compiler may cause in monetary terms. What does that have to do with anything?

Originally posted by Asher
That's also why GCC is MUCH, much slower.

Again, what does this have anything to do with GPL?

Originally posted by Asher
The fact that you indicate that you're not sure compiler front-ends exists tells me just how little you actually know about the subject, as usual.

Nice strawman, but it's blindingly obvious that was not what I said. Misinterpreting me to put up a strawman is plain low.

Originally posted by Asher
Please present your argument to me, I'm intrigued -- which part of the GPL lets me use any GPL code as part of my program without opensourcing it all? Say, use the GCC frontend as part of my compiler with a proprietary backend.

As I said, you haven't read the license itself. All you have read is just MS FUD.

Rebuttal to your assertion

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Asher

I want to use the GNU front-end for my own compiler, which is a proprietary backend that my company spent $160M developing over 5 years.

Unfortunately, I can't do that without making my backend open-sourced so my competitors can use it against me.

Why would I spend $160M of my company's capital in investing in something that provides me zero benefit w.r.t. my competition?

The argument could be made that GPL stifles innovation because it removes the incentive for competition.

I think that you are guilty of revisionism here . If you want to just use the front-end on your own computer , you are free do do so witout open-sourcing it . If you want to distribute it , that's another story . But saying that you can't use a GNU frontend internally is just incorrect .

[Fve Crathva]

As a result, Microsoft lifted the BSD TCP stack entirely without giving anything in return. How is that beneficial to the free and open source community?

It's really not... but it's good for Windows, which is the whole point. This is where you ideologues get confused. It's not all about you and your desire to force people into your ideology. That's exactly like a cult. Most people get squirrely when asked to drink the Kool-Aid, and that's why they won't use GPLed software.

Just tell me again - if the BSD license was domianat and adopted , what would prevent someone lifting the entire GNU toolchain , the Linux kernel , repackaging it , and claiming that it ( the repackaging in more user-friendly form ) was a great innovation , while using the BSD credits notice to entice more customers by saying that it was "built on a stable and solid UNIX system" ?

Firstly, that would be a lie, and in an ideal world where people weren't apathetic (and specifically, the open source zealots weren't self-absorbed crazies), one would get torn a new ******* for it. Secondly, I think you might be confusing a license to use the code with ownership of the copyright. Putting something out under the BSD license isn't the same as putting it out into the public domain.

Copyright (c) 2005, Fve Crathva
All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in source and interpreted forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

* Redistributions of source text must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* Redistributions in interpreted form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
* Neither the name of Fve Crathva nor the names of my friends may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this post without specific prior written permission.

THIS POST IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS POST, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

SP

[Asher]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Explain "touch."

Linked with and/or incorporated into the source code.

You just copied that from the Microsoft Big Book of FUD.

You just said that's what it's about. It just doesn't sound as nice when someone looks at it from a negative perspective.

As a result, Microsoft lifted the BSD TCP stack entirely without giving anything in return. How is that beneficial to the free and open source community?

How is that beneficial to the general user, is the point of the BSD license...

Again, philosophical differences -- the GPL is all about masturbating the open source community, the BSD is about quality code.

BSD TCP stacks are available in Windows NT for POSIX compliance, which is a great tool to the end user. This would not have been possible had BSD been GPLed.

So? Your original example is not about how much a compiler may cause in monetary terms. What does that have to do with anything?

I'm not surprised that you're having trouble looking at this from a real-world perspective.

The point is, the GPL would require me to duplicate my efforts (writing my own C++ compiler frontend -- no easy task) rather than using an excellently-available front end that I could otherwise use. If I use the GPL GCC frontend, I would have to forgo any competitive advantage I've put in my $160M R&D into my compiler back-end, due to the GPL license forcing the entire thing to be GPLed.

Again, what does this have anything to do with GPL?

It was a sidenote to reflect that the GPL produces mediocrity, not quality.

Nice strawman, but it's blindingly obvious that was not what I said. Misinterpreting me to put up a strawman is plain low.

No, what's low is denying the "blindingly obvious":

GNU front-end (if there is such a thing).

You can't say you're unsure if there's a GNU front-end, then say it's a strawman when I mention that...

As I said, you haven't read the license itself. All you have read is just MS FUD.

Rebuttal to your assertion

Man, UR...I think you need to read the license yourself. You just own-goaled yourself with that link.

But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL.

The GPL requires me to open-source anything if it's not just used internally (which was a "blindly obvious" implication in my example, which was developing a compiler).

[Asher]

Originally posted by aneeshm
I think that you are guilty of revisionism here . If you want to just use the front-end on your own computer , you are free do do so witout open-sourcing it . If you want to distribute it , that's another story . But saying that you can't use a GNU frontend internally is just incorrect .

Talk about completely missing the point.

The idea is my company was developing a proprietary compiler back-end, and wanted to use the GCC front-end because there's no point in developing something anew when that front end is adequate.

I never said I couldn't use a GNU frontend internally. The obvious implication is that I would be distributing the compiler as a product.

[aneeshm]

You , too , seem to be missing the point Stallman seems to be trying to make . He says that he considers the freedom to modify , copy , and redistribute the program in improved form essential , and considers software that attempts to restrict such freedoms unethical . He is also unwilling to use such software himself .

It was with this in mind that he developed the GNU GPL . Though I may disagree with some of what he says , he still was the one willing to give up the chance of a high-paying jobs and a very lucrative career in order to sit at home , subsist on the sale of EMACS tapes , and write an entire compiler and related utilities on his own .

Would you be able/willing to do something like this for your beliefs ?

You will have to admit that his dedication to his ideals is commendable , and that he has done more for the developer/hobbyist/student community than anyone else in this world . It is because of him that a complete collecation of developer tools is available to anyone today , however flawed you may consider it . And for that , I thank him .

[Asher]

Originally posted by aneeshm
You , too , seem to be missing the point Stallman seems to be trying to make . He says that he considers the freedom to modify , copy , and redistribute the program in improved form essential , and considers software that attempts to restrict such freedoms unethical . He is also unwilling to use such software himself .

I understand that, but that doesn't make me agree with it.

I think it's a cult-like license. I don't like it. I'm a practical person, I like practical things. I don't like religion, I don't like cults, I don't like the GPL.

It was with this in mind that he developed the GNU GPL . Though I may disagree with some of what he says , he still was the one willing to give up the chance of a high-paying jobs and a very lucrative career in order to sit at home , subsist on the sale of EMACS tapes , and write an entire compiler and related utilities on his own .

While getting a very fat salary from MIT...

Would you be able/willing to do something like this for your beliefs ?

The man makes over $100K a year for sitting on his ass. Why do you make him out to be some kind of selfless guy?

I've seen many religious cults have equally dedicated people, and that also scares me. His dedication does not impress me when it's misguided.

You will have to admit that his dedication to his ideals is commendable

He's a zealot, I don't commend that. He's a freak, his code sucks, and he has an almost religious following of people who don't care about the practical and become separated from the real world.

[CapTVK]

Haven't I seen this discussion before?

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Asher

I understand that, but that doesn't make me agree with it.

I think it's a cult-like license. I don't like it. I'm a practical person, I like practical things. I don't like religion, I don't like cults, I don't like the GPL.

Stallman is an atheist , and publicly makes fun of cultists ( he poses ad a cult leader , with funny clothes , and has founded a spoof of his "Church of EMACS" ) .

Originally posted by Asher

While getting a very fat salary from MIT...

Uhh . . . . . . . . . AFAIK , he quit MIT to develop GNU .

Originally posted by Asher

The man makes over $100K a year for sitting on his ass. Why do you make him out to be some kind of selfless guy?

I think he deserves every penny he gets . Today , someone can buy a computer , get a GNU/Linux CD , and be pretty much developing useful application in under an hour for practically zero cost of software . I thank him for this , and so do many , many others .

Originally posted by Asher

I've seen many religious cults have equally dedicated people, and that also scares me. His dedication does not impress me when it's misguided.

Addressed the cultism thing above .

Originally posted by Asher

He's a zealot, I don't commend that. He's a freak, his code sucks, and he has an almost religious following of people who don't care about the practical and become separated from the real world.

As I said , he makes fun of himself . You can't get less zealoty than that , can you ? And let me tell you , being "practical" , if that means not sticking to ideals you know are sound , is very , very impractical in the long run .

This is , however , getting totally off-topic , and I'd request that you fork the thread to keep the discussion on-topic .

[Thue]

Re: Free Software advancing : First GPL game released , Winamp AVS and Milkdrop freed

Originally posted by aneeshm
Two links I came across on Slashdot . In the first , we have the news that a fully GPL licensed game is being released for Linux , Windows , and soon for the Mac ( with apologies to Agathorn ) . Imagine the moddability . . . . . . .

Umm, this is not a first by a long shot. Fx you may have heard of Freeciv, which is also quite apropos as this is a civ website.

[Asher]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Stallman is an atheist , and publicly makes fun of cultists ( he poses ad a cult leader , with funny clothes , and has founded a spoof of his "Church of EMACS" ) .

That doesn't change the fact that he has the cult of GNU.

Uhh . . . . . . . . . AFAIK , he quit MIT to develop GNU .

True true. Now he just gets other money thrown at him.

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V121/N59/59stallman.59n.html

I think he deserves every penny he gets . Today , someone can buy a computer , get a GNU/Linux CD , and be pretty much developing useful application in under an hour for practically zero cost of software . I thank him for this , and so do many , many others .

Good on him for targeting the sub-Walmart market.

It's still sub-par quality software.

As I said , he makes fun of himself . You can't get less zealoty than that , can you ? And let me tell you , being "practical" , if that means not sticking to ideals you know are sound , is very , very impractical in the long run .

Being practical means using the best tool for the job, and not letting any kind of unrealistic ideal interfere in the creation of quality software.

The GPL forces you to opensource your program if you incorporate any GPL code in it.

The BSD license does not force you opensource your program if you incorporate any BSD code in it.

The GPL essentially isolates itself from non-open source code. It's an impractical license on that grounds.

[Asher]

Re: Re: Free Software advancing : First GPL game released , Winamp AVS and Milkdrop f

Originally posted by Thue
Umm, this is not a first by a long shot. Fx you may have heard of Freeciv, which is also quite apropos as this is a civ website.

Another example of sub-par GPL software.

[LDiCesare]

I think he deserves every penny he gets . Today , someone can buy a computer , get a GNU/Linux CD , and be pretty much developing useful application in under an hour for practically zero cost of software . I thank him for this , and so do many , many others .

Anyone can buy a computer (usually with an OS preinstalled) get a BSD Unix CD, (or keep the Windows that probably came with the box anyway), and start developping useful applications in java for practically zero cost too. Java is not developped under GPL but the language comes with free compilers and interpreters too.

To be more on-topic, the game I mentioned earlier, NetHack, uses the NetHack license (copyright 1989) based on the BISON general public license aka GPL. So actualy, the first GPL game released probably dates back to 1989, and was inspired by Rogue, which was BSD-license-delivered, and actually bundled with some versions of the BSD OS, the game dating back to 1980.
Some people still play NetHack. I somehow doubt Nexuiz will have the same popularity and longevity.

[Fve Crathva]

Originally posted by aneeshm
You , too , seem to be missing the point Stallman seems to be trying to make . He says that he considers the freedom to modify , copy , and redistribute the program in improved form essential , and considers software that attempts to restrict such freedoms unethical . He is also unwilling to use such software himself .

That's right, and he's imposing his belief system on developers. When you make a significant part of the code base unacceptable to industry, that's not supporting open source, and it's not honourable or commendable. With the GPL, Stallman is treating open source software like a whore, uglying it up so that people he doesn't like won't want to use it. He's cutting off its balls and taking them home so the other kids can't play with them, just because the other kids don't want to play his way.

SP