Re: [dev] reboot, arrow in the knee because of the GNU GPL???

From: Sylvain BERTRAND <>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 05:15:53 +0200

On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 11:11:38AM +0900, Philip Rushik wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Sylvain BERTRAND <> wrote:
> > It did not get to me (I'm an internet children, I'm used to
> > trolls).
> > On those later threads, I stayed polite and analytical all the
> > time except, of course, regarding closed source system software
> > manufacturers. Could you pinpoint to me some parts I was
> > insulting the participating "subscribers" or engaged in active
> > public discredit (like making fun of published code)?
> In most parts of the world "dirty lie" is not considered to be very
> friendly. Just because you didn't specifically make fun of somebody's
> code doesn't mean you were being civil and polite. You were very
> aggressive, just take a look back at the things you have written.

I did. It is order of magnitude less that the other guys. A drop
in the middle of a public wipping. It's neglectable compared to the
other guys. Please be fair: do provide the same treatement you
are giving me to the other guys.

> > Hey! I was asked to start a new thread. I know it's bad to "steal" the
> > topic of a thread like that. Then I did it, and in an instant I
> > was told to kill that thread ???
> > I started another thread regarding a real life GNU GPL license
> > issue of one of suckless subscribers (the holy graal for me). The
> > thread was immedialtly "stolen" and strayed away from its primary
> > purpose.
> > Then I rebooted the thread, and ask the people to be nice and
> > respect the purpose of this thread. Code license is important for
> > all suckless software and, finally, and we have somebody able to
> > reveal to suckless people a real life issue with the GNU GPL.
> > This is reasonnably valid to be dealed and discussed by the
> > suckless community.
> You started an entire thread when you only wanted an answer from one
> person. On a topic you have to know is going nowhere, its even been
> discussed on the suckless mailing lists before.
> I agree that this thread needs to die very soon. It's good advice on
> account of there is no beneficial communication happening here.

I firmely disagree with you on this: the event of somebody hurt
by the GNU GPL with real life facts is of highest importance for
all open source coders. And communication would have been
an enrichment for the suckless community.
The thread will die because I think those facts do not exist.

> > Nobody has been able to pinpoint to me pertinent, real life,
> > issues with the GNU GPL licenses that would make prefer MIT/BSD
> > like licenses. The only thing I have got is, to summerize,
> > "trust me, there are some".
> > If you have some, I'll be pleased to read about them, because the
> > issue from a subscriber seems top secret/classified (how
> > convenient!)
> > And hey! I cannot disagree on things I'm not told about yet! Come
> > on :). I only can disagree on keeping it a secret, that's it.
> > I was happy, in a technical argument about choice of SDK build
> > system, a "subcriber" swore to me he had real troubles with the
> > GNU GPL. Again, when I'm about to get that intell, abracadabra, It
> > disappears, and people are frowing eyebrows hard!
> The main argument is idealogical in nature. Whether the added
> restrictions in the GPL are hurtful or not has never been proven, nor
> will it likely ever be. Real examples will be something like "Party A
> GPLs his code, Party B could improve it, but doesn't because he
> disagrees with GPL/wants to use a different license, therefore the
> world is deprived of an improvement to Party A's software". I don't
> use GPL because I believe all restriction inhibits progress, and I
> have to do extra work to make sure I never derive anything from a
> GPL'd source, so GPL hurts me.

"Whether the added restrictions in the GPL are
hurtful or not has never been proven, nor will it likely ever

Thank you. Then you were right, it would have ended in public

(I don't debuck the quite common pro-BSD/MIT license example you
selected above, it's of course completely biased, I was asked
off-list to let go (bash?) all licenses issues from the list, you
can ask me the details off-list).

> Do a search on Google, lot's of people complain about GPL and give
> good reasons for it. and valid arguments have been stated here as
> well. Its an argument as old as the GPL itself, even you refered to
> the disagreement between Stallman and Torvalds over the GPLv3, so you
> _must_ be aware of some of the arguments. My own argument is very
> similar to Torvalds problem with the v3.

I have never ever encountered "good" reasons from a clean and
honest point of view... Never ever... Usually, I get to face a
bunch of hypocrites who only think of open source software as a
reservoir of free, as in free beer, code to perform vendor
lock-in with closed then enhanced/modified open source code.

>> It's common on web public forums (trolls and super stealth
>> kiddies using tor). Why not on a public mailing
>> list. Here, they are a bit smarter than their web counter parts,
>> that's all, but we are not a lot higher than the sea level (I
>> wonder, could they be bots to win the turing price?)
> Just because somebody disagrees with you doesn't make them a troll or
> a bot. A lot of suckless software already uses MIT/BSD licenses, so
> you should have known your ideas would not be popular. The people on
> this list are real people that disagree with you.
>> That, I just posted it. Apparently, the damage happened before. I
>> wonder when... as I said, I'm open minded, I do accept
>> constructive critisism.
> Saying it is not enough.

This is a revenge for me saying "dirty lie"? ;)


Received on Thu Jun 26 2014 - 05:15:53 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Thu Jun 26 2014 - 05:24:06 CEST