New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
I refused a spammer the other day does that make mean I set Africans on fire at KKK meetings?
Ok, what next ? we put clauses that the ppl which buy houses here will never marry negroes ? Or that certain confessions are not allowed to build temples on their land because it is in our neighbourhood and we sold them that land ?
Or, because there are better free alternatives to windows we can void the license to use the product if you use certain OS products ? Go the way of iOS ? Sure, there is Android around, does it make correct ?
Completely agreed, this is why religion is not doing any good and never did. It will always try to use the law to impose itself on others, all confessions, including atheists and agnostics should fight their leaders when they try to impose their faith on others, wage wars for it, make laws, whatever.
When ppl say, but wait, we are right and they are wrong, we should live separately, cast them out, kick them from work, put them to prison, not apply our constitution to them, bomb them because they are evil, you know there cant be peace and safety, nomatter how much you spent for wars and sacurity, no matter how much freedom you give up for the "greater good", for the defense of the x way and y god(s).
If God was real would be offensed mere mortals believe his church would ever need any defense from their side.
Edit: nvm done with the troll since he started his religious rants again. Can't converse about a web server without talking about starving minorities, murdering cancer patients, and religious oppression. The absurdity is too deep to swim in.
Your signature should say "If you engage me in conversation it will always result in politics and religion even if the original content was cake."
The cake is a LIE!
@Magiobiwan Stop oppressing me!
GPL is no longer about freedom, its now about control and trying to twist people's arms into excluding who they don't like. Trying to force people to open their systems by exclusion tears at the very concept of "freedom."
Wait, are you suggesting that GPL discriminating towards iOS because it isn't compatible with the Apple walled garden of fart apps TOS? That's absurd. GPL is about freedom from sick clauses such as "the developer of an application is not the distributor of the application in the App Store--Apple is" and "prohibition on redistribution of the application".
It's the other way around - it's Apple's fault that Pidgin isn't allowed, because their TOS is in direct conflict with everything the GPL stands for.
You seem to be confused. The issue in that situation are the Apple licensing requirements, not the GPL license. The GPL seeks to guarantee certain freedoms, and the Apple licensing model doesn't let you grant those freedoms to users. That is not through fault of the GPL.
I do more or less agree with that; in fact, it's why I strongly prefer licenses such as the WTFPL, CC0, MIT, etc.
EDIT: Aside from that, I suspect that the most interesting aspect of this open-source code release isn't so much the daemon itself, as it is the code required for implementing the PHP LSAPI. I would not be surprised if similar code were to pop up in other HTTPd source trees very soon.
No it's not. The GPL was changed in order to exclude closed environments specifically. It was done to try to coerce closed environments to open up. This defies the entire purpose of the freedom of choice. If I can't release the source on my website and a locked binary on a closed system that matches, in the name of "freedom," you are aiming for exclusion and that is simply that. You obviously weren't following the controversy over the GPL version 3 when this was all taking place. This wasn't a case of Apple defying the GPL. This was a case of the GPL taking an activist stance against Apple's rules. Apple had these rules prior to GPLv3. The actions that led to this were passive from Apple and active from those writing the GPL. Rather than find a compromise (of which many can be found without any need for Apple compliance), they opted for exclusion.
It doesn't matter if you like Apple or their rules, it only matters whether you support "freedom" practiced by way of intentional exclusion. In no way is "freedom for everyone but the people who don't support freedom" actual true freedom.
Definitely. It was through reading your comments that I learned of WTFPL and I agree that it falls much more in line with the concept of true code freedom as opposed to trying to play the role of an activist masked as a "free" license.
The GPLv3 changes had more to do with Tivo than with Apple. The GPLv3 and the original iPhone released on the same day, so it's weird to say any part of the GPLv3 was a reaction to the app store. Those issues were being discussed during the run up to the official unveiling of the new license, but as much as two years before the iPhone even existed, and they were framed around Tivo and the MS/Novell patent agreements
Apple didn't invent walled gardens. The aim of the GPL is to increase freedom for end users as much as for developers, including the right to run modified versions of your software on their platform. If the platform cannot or will not allow them that freedom, that's a problem.
That said, one of the freedoms the GPL gives you as a developer is to not use the GPLv3 if you don't want to. If you have a problem with the GPLv3 then contact the maintainers of the code you're interested in, and see about getting it under an alternative license.
@Soylent You are correct and my memory obviously failed me some. Appreciate the correction. Things aren't as clear as they used to be and I'm not even 30 yet. I'll rephrase to say it was a reaction to closed environments. My biggest problem with it is that I think it was a jerk move that shifted away from their original purpose, but obviously developers can choose to not use it.
You got it confused again.
Section 6 of GPLv2 says:
Pidgin is licensed under GPLv2 or later. GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2 was released in June 1991. I think we can agree that 1991 was before the App store.
Leave it up to jarland to exacerbate a derail by abusing the word 'freedom' and constructing completely non-related strawman arguments to justify how his contrived values systems take precedence over all else
@texteditor Leave it up to you to pop in when you see an opportunity to be a dick. Rarely do you post anymore for any other reason.
@heiska Yes I did get confused I apologize. I stand by judgement of the GPL but I was incorrect on the rest. My memory gets worse every year. I can fondly remember details that aren't even true.
The irony of this reply is killing me. It's too much
@texeditor I thought you supported a peaceful and loving society? Not sure why you're so angry all the time for such an enlightened individual.
I do, and I get upset of the obstructionists who stand in the way.
Also, it's terribly not fun to read your arguments because you always play a game of "let's all use jarland's definitions of terms as a baseline for everything", which combined with your "why won't someone think of the people trying to force their 'morals' on others? Are their no rights for moral crusaders?" argument leads to your persecution complex getting dragged into everything.
No one calls you out, I'm guessing they just skim your walls of text, see the phrase "personal freedoms" several times and nod in agreement.
You are only coming to defense of the TOS because it allows enforcement of your morality.
If's nginx's license said "no Christianity websites" you'd throw a hissyfit.
Also, the theoretical nginx license, much like LiteSpeed's, probably wouldn't stand up in court if anyone ever cared enough to challenge it.
Feel free to point out where I've made my own definition for something. Who is even really arguing? This is all light conversation, you're the only one with the sore butthole. I admit when I'm wrong, you're incapable of observing your own biases and mistakes. I've proven that in previous times when you've suggested that oppression is wrong unless targeted to those who are linked by a common thread to someone previously accused by you of oppression and only then when that thread is relevant based on your personal priorities and preferences on what you wish was absolute.
But no feel free to make this about me and continue to be an angry individual. I already admitted my mistake above, you're just here to be a dick. Grow up.
Are you certain that I would? I don't recall telling you that. It appears to me as though you're just trying to make something out of nothing.
100%
I don't know how to have a logical discussion with someone who just declared themselves to hold supernatural power to read my mind. Grow up kid.
Says the man who has defined freedom for us and regularly speaks on behalf of a deity
Actually the dictionary defined that but keep trolling kid.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/freedom
And yet, your posts in this thread have all been along the lines of "why don't people have the freedom to sell a license or use the GPL and also have the freedom to tell users they aren't free to use it for purpose X"
Your version of freedom seems to boil down to "I get to do what I want, including keeping others from doing what they want"
So thanks for linking a dictionary page, why don't you read it and compare it with your posts and see if they match up (they don't, so if you want to keep dictionary-linking at least look for one biased enough to agree with you)
Funnily enough, that's exactly what the GPL does.
@texteditor I never stated that developers should be forced to release their code with freedom. I stated that their freedom is found in their choice to not do so and oppression would be removing their freedom to do that. If you can find where I said that please post it. It's not my fault if you read words that aren't there. The GPL is about freedom and so it's authors should practice what they preach. The individual developer that has made no commitment to freedom is not required to give freedom to others to use their property.
Now please present your next troll attempt.
Except for the GPL it's about preventing the exploitation of public works for profit, not enforcing, whereas in the case of LiteSpeed's license they are selling youo a license (but not actually selling it, read our rules)
The GPL has stood up in court before. This likely wouldn't
If I can't add it in the App Store with no cost to the end user while adding in the description my website where the full source can be found and be in compliance with the GPL, it is about exclusion is it not? Free and providing source is not consistent with exploitation for profit.
A) Read what I wrote, I didn't say you said that
Freedom is not a blanket term you can apply everywhere equally, there's a difference between "freedom or lack of in what you can say or display over our medium (webserver)" and "freedom to use and re-distribute this public good."
@texteditor
I'll rephrase to "liberty" in reference to a developer's right to sell their code for whatever purpose or to whomever they deem appropriate. Although freedom is appropriate in reference to unrestricted ability to do with their property as they deem fit. You seem to need a different word to read it properly, which I am being kind enough to provide while my original was intellectually sufficient by definition not made up by me.
Because the source code is essentially worthless anyways, because even though it's available to you you can't just patch/compile it yourself and throw it on your device?
It's basically pushing the thought behind GPLv2 to an extreme, saying "well ideally you could use GPL'd code on an iOS device, but providing the source would be useless to end-users, so it makes the GPL self-defeating since users can both simultaneously have the source code and not have it (since they can't rebuild and use it)"
The v3 does suck, but without the additions the GPL is worthless in walled gardens.