Thanks for watching! My Website: www.thisweekinlinux.com My Facebook Page bit.ly My Twitter: www.twitter.com My IRC Channel: #twil on irc.freenode.net Music by Kevin macleod of incompetech.com
This Week In Linux: Open Source Users Are Pirates? The IIPA Thinks So…
About admin
Subscribe
Subscribe to our e-mail newsletter to receive updates.
26 Responses to This Week In Linux: Open Source Users Are Pirates? The IIPA Thinks So…
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
- - March 10, 2010
[...] more from the original source: This Week In Linux: Open Source Users Are Pirates? The IIPA Thinks … Share and [...]
Leave a Reply
© 2012 All out Bangalore. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by WordPress. Designed by 
ill answer it again but this wasnt my argument. Red hat makes money on gpl providing services i never said they didnt or couldnt. i said they’re still restricted by gpl. its not true freedom That is NOT the same as BSD license or the relationship with mac os x and bsd. companies hate gpl and thats FACT and it goes against free enterprise. How is your arguement relevent to mine tho? even though i still dont know what your arguement is. tell me again please?
blahblahblah
redhat… answer it. there is your proof.
LOL cherrypicking? you picked to last sentence of one of my statements and overlooked my whole arguement. you fail to show ANY real arguement & your irrelevant to the conversation. if im wrong please prove me wrong.
i replied to your first comment below i just saw this one but ill say it again because u dont know how licenses work: all the code that red hat uses must stay open. it must agree to the terms of use of gpl. How is that anything like capitalism? its not. thats my arguement.
@aMoreno16
spare us the cherrypicking rambling. answer me about redhat.
@aMoreno16 “u insult my inteligence”
I think u do it better, though.
and BSD is the license, not the Operating system there are all kinds of software that is BSD license unrelated to the OS but u know that right?
i basically said that the BSD license allowed apple use the open source operating system the way they wanted to. is that to hard for you to understand? its about creating a business platform u see. the source is free to everyone including business unlike gpl. its too restricted. thats the reason gpl is not capitalism like it said in the video. understand? i said nothing about innovation. i brought up apple as an example u didnt read all my comments which u shouldve done i dont like apple
its about capitalism you missed the point of my arguement. u insult my inteligence. stick to the issue its gpl vs capitslism not about innovation. dude seriously?
“so red hat doesnt exist?” yeah they use gpl but they are restricted by what they can do with the code. I NEVER said they couldnt sell it. you missed the point.
“companies abuse”
listen i think its good to question the motives of buisness. but that has nothing to do with my arguement. im talking about it from a capitalism & freedom of source perspective; thats the issue. companies dont like gpl and thats a FACT. like i said before: everything else is bullshit.
btw, the notion that bsd adoption by apple creates bsd innovation is a sick joke, an insult upon our intelligence, really.
@aMoreno16 “businesses arent adopting GPL code tho.”
so redhat doesn’t exist? listen, who cares if business don’t “adopt” GPL, they just abuse that adopted child for their own ends anyway. you already have your apple’s bitch called freebsd, no need to sink the GPL into that dark pit. BSD serves a purpose, as does GPL, but different purposes.
just to make things clear: companies cant just “steal” bsd code. they can make there own changes and make it proprietary but the original code is still open and under bsd. yeah gpl is open source but its either their way or the highway. check up on richard stallman. he is a anti-capitalist. thats why he made gpl.
it doesnt matter. the original code is still free & unchanged. the fact that apple is able to do whatever they want with open code & still make money shows that the bsd license works. everything else is bullshit. im talking about business adoption. apple is just one example. and dude dont mention forks cause linux is the king of redundant forks going nowhere. i started talking of capitalism and gpl. but its just better to say it like this: BSD = true source code freedom& GPL =freedom for a group
@aMoreno16
Proprietary forks of BSD Codes are a mess.
Can a Windows machine execute binaries that was compiled on xcode by default? that’s what happens when BSD Code is relicensed into proprietary code.
That restricts developers from making another OS that works with every binary ever compiled and forking any piece of software that they want.
BSD Code cause Free Enterprise at first and the vendors lock users in and lock other vendors out.
But companies like locking people in.
yeah your right it COULD be worse for the user. but not for business. in fact, if you think about it, since with the BSD code, business are using more open code instead of there own code from scratch, dont you see a bigger potential for collaboration, compatibility, and competition? i mean the source code is essentially the same right? i mean look at Mac OS X! that has made millions of $ for apple. they have alot of happy users -and that benefits from BSD. businesses arent adopting GPL code tho.
@aMoreno16 Yeah, but if you don’t like the GPL, don’t peak at GPL Code. Just if you don’t like Ms-PL, don’t look at Microsoft Code.
Which restriction is worse?
Making BSD code restricting the end user when a company takes your BSD Code for like a Video Editor, relicense and locking the end user in and restricting them from using any other editor if their format is a locked industry/home standard?
or restricting the Developer from changing the license to whatever they want?
you are right essentially. Businesses hate the GPL. im just saying there is another licenses better suited for buisness which give TRUE SOURCE FREEDOM.
nah im not saying they couldnt sell it or redistribute it, im saying exactly what you just said: “CODE HAS TO REMAIN IN THE GPL LICENSE”.the GPL FORCES code to 1) remain open & 2) it restricts a company with what they can do with it. Restrictions are always bad. it totally goes against free enterprise.its looks more like communism.BSD license does not allow “vendor lock-in” like alot of people believe.the original code STAYS free, the proprietary modified code gets used unrestricted by business.
@aMoreno16 The only reason why Companies hate the GPL is they can’t cause a vendor lock-in.
Like they can’t take the Gimp Source Code and Change the code and make it save in a format by default that Gimp can’t read so they can make a competitor to pixelmator, sell it for like $100 per copy and without contributing back to the GPL.
But you can sell GPL3 Binaries. The Source Code just has to be free. encourages capitalism, but prevents vendor lock-in. It encourages progress the way science does.
from what I’ve read, the lobbying group are anti-linux not just because it takes their power away, but it provides competition. it’s “taking money away from software developers”, but putting money in the hands of other software developers… screwy.
ok yeah i see. it’s a separate issue from the video. im just saying that if your talking about the GPL,its not pro-capitalism. companies tend to avoid GPL because of the restrictions. the BSD license (which is part of FOSS) does not have those restrictions. but it is clear that these lobbyist have a problem with linux specifically. they dont want countries to adopt to it because it takes their power away. and it is considered “viral” right? “linux is a cancer”. they cant control you anymore
The GPL restricts proprietary changes without providing the code, but doesn’t discourage the sale of GPL’d software.
My point was not about the software, though, because most companies give it away. The capitalist part of FOSS is the companies’ ability to charge for service/support.
Fuck them I am a pirate. Try and catch me.
i understand your point about open source, but the GPL license (used in linux) is anything but pro-capitalism. it restrict the ability for anyone (including business) to make their own proprietary changes. All software under GPL belongs to no one else but GPL. it is definitely not true source code freedom. besides, GPL creator Richard Stallman is a socialist. sorry but its the truth.