Paths To Knowledge (dot Science)

What is actually real in Objective Reality? How do you know? Now, prove it's real!

BSD, Apache, MIT, et. al. are truly free and open souce when compared with the Stallmanistic Geekie Hippie Communistic License of the GPL Viral Infective Code

Posted by pwl on April 30, 2009

“While the GPL powers as much as 77% of all SourceForge projects, Eric Raymond argues that the GPL is ‘a confession of fear and weakness’ that ‘slows down open-source adoption’ because of the fear and uncertainty the GPL provokes. Raymond’s argument seems to be that if openness is the winning strategy, an argument Michael Tiemann advocates, wouldn’t it make sense to use the most open license? Geir Magnusson of the Apache Software Foundation suggests that there are few ‘pure’ GPL-only open-source projects, as GPL-prone developers have to ‘modify it in some way to get around the enforcement of Freedom(SM) in GPL so people can use the project.’ But the real benefit of Apache-style licensing may not be for developers at all, and rather accrue to businesses hoping to drive adoption of their products: Apache licensing may encourage broader, deeper adoption than the GPL. The old GPL vs. BSD/Apache debate may not be about developer preferences so much as new business realities.”

Wow finally!!! The truth is said in public clearly about the vile pernicious bankrupt philosophy of Richard Stallman: enforced freedom and enforced sharing.

Open-source luminary Eric Raymond is pretty clear on this point:

I think we live in a…universe…in which the GPL is unnecessary rather than futile. Mind you, I am not claiming the GPL is entirely useless. It’s a signaling behavior, like wearing a crucifix or yarmulke or pentagram; it helps build trust groups. But it has costs, too.

It [the GPL and it’s GNU Cult Members] creates a lot of needless fear from potential allies and users who suspect they won’t be able to control their exposure, if they let it in… Is the GPL‘s utility as a form of in-group signaling worth the degree to which [of] fear and uncertainty about it slows down open-source adoption? Increasingly, I think the answer is no.

The GPL may be a community-building signaling device, but it is also a confession of fear and weakness. To believe that it matters, you have to believe that you live in a…universe where closed-source development is such an attractive proposition that you have to punish people for trying to move to it.

BSD wins for open source business hands down since it lets the developers (the only ones who actually matter from our point of view) do what ever the heck they want without being forced by communistic licensing terms of the GPL to give away our competitive advantage!!! If you don’t like that too bad for you. This is our point of view. You don’t have to like it or accept it for yourself but just don’t force your commune upon our income earning potential. Thanks.

Che-Stallman, Commune Overlord and Dictator of
The GNU Communistic GPL Viral Infective Software Cult

Clearly we don’t advise anyone to put their code under the GPL license as that means you’ve joined the dark side of the force. Why? For the reasons listed in this articles and others that describe how the GPL license is pernicious and a viral infection. It also imposes serious limitations when one wants to use otherwise good open source code within ones projects – it means that one can’t mix any GPL code into your own program without it being infected with the GPL virus. What a waste.

Che Guevara, a communist militant who was involved in the murders of many thousands of people.
Although Richard Che-Stallman might not have murdered any people it’s clear that his cult has had a massive disruptive effect preventing open source developers from maximizing the potential of GPLed software due to the insane communistic restrictions of the GNU project and it’s GPL philosophy of Enforced Freedom which is a Faux Freedom. Heck, you can’t even load a GPLed DLL without infecting your code!!! How crazy is that!!!

Embrace Truly Free Software, BSD, MIT, Apache, et. al. (where et. al. excludes GPL like restrictive licenses) to ensure your freedom.

Yes, the GPL can be said to be a hippie type ideal “commune” or communistic SINCE it forms a community that REQUIRES that members FOLLOW RULES that they PROVIDE their WORK for FREE if they want to join.

Uncouth Hippie Icky Richard Stallman, the Publicly Rude Slob-Icky Poster Child of Open Source.

Get a bathroom dude. Wash your hands with soap for ten minutes Ricahrd. Now we know NEVER EVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES to shake Richard Stallman’s hands as we know that he doesn’t even care where he puts them. Tasty toe jam there Richard? Ick dude, get some manners Richard Stallman. Ok this is just too much to handle. Ick.

Most users never care about code. They simply want their system to work. It’s programmers who care about code.

If I want something you GPLers created I simply use it without paying you anything. There are ways around the GPL rules. Simply stick the darn program into it’s own space and only make essential minimal if any changes to it. Keep it a separate program wrapped in a protective condom to keep the GPL virus from infecting my code with it’s silly and stupid license terms that would convert my code into the GPL commune. No thanks, my code stays mine.

I have contributed some of my code to the GPL but always I have a dual license with the BSD license providing the true freedom for other coders (the only ones who matter are coders not end users) and even users.

Many projects are BSD-style licensed without the need to enforce sharing. That’s what the GPL does, it enforces sharing but it creates a nasty pernicious situation where if it’s included into your program ALL your code in that program becomes infected with the GPL virus license. Why? That’s totally insane terms. Just because I compile a source file into my program space ALL my other code in that space MUST become GPLed. Insanity.

So as a result wrap GPL code in separate program spaces to keep it from infecting other code.

Now, let’s compare that with BSD, Apache, MIT, the truly free license styles. They are truly free since I, a programmer, can include as much or as little of their source code in any program space I choose without their license infecting the rest of the code in that space. So they are non-infective and since they don’t require me to contribute my changes back to their projects I am free do so as I please: share or not.

I as a programmer dedicated to excellence in software for my clients do care about my end users, they after all provide my income. Producing the best software for them is paramount. However, giving them the source code won’t make the software any better for they are not programmers!!! So they really don’t care about the code. You just have to get that. The vast majority of end users are not programmers and never will be and really don’t care about the source code – it’s just gobbly gook to them. It’s geek without a translation matrix. What end users care about is great software.

Furthermore, more often than not the quality of open source software is, well, to be polite, a bit clunky and full of errors. That’s fine, you get what you pay for and since it’s free one must accept it as it is and if one chooses one can fix it as needed or even improve upon it as one is inspired.

The GPL is mainly aimed at people like Richard Stallman: DORKY PROGRAMMERS!!! Well, the vast majority of human beings will never program a computer. Certainly they’ll never want to go through the horrors of getting make files to actually work. It’s too geek for them. They are actually humans not geeks.

The GPL may actually make a lot of sense to people who are like Richard Stallman: dorky programmers who want a cause. You do know of course that Stallman is a hippie. Have you ever met him? I’ve meet him a number of times and he’s basically a geekie hippie with a cause. Great for him and his commune cult followers. Join his cult if you want, release your code as GPL if you want. Just don’t expect me to do the same. Just don’t expect me to be happy that you put so many restrictions on it that I have to alter my build process so as to not include your source in the same program as my code. Eesh. Annoying.

Anyway the work around the GPL is to simply keep GPLed programs within the condom protection of their own program space and to enhance them as needed to provide access to the real programs that are doing the primary work load: my code. That interface might be CLI in which case missing CLI options are added.

What’s really needed is something that is between CLI and having the code in my space. Sorta like a DLL loading but wrapped in a protective condom so that the GPL viral license terms don’t infect my application code. Maybe a program that loads up the GPL DLLs into it’s own space and then communicates with a BSD dll in my program space via shared memory. That’s the kind of protective bubble that’s needed to fully take advantage of ALL and ANY function in GPLed space. Not only would function entry points be visible but data structures would also be visible and usable from my program space through the protective layers always keeping the GPL infected code within it’s own memory space.

You see the lengths that you GPLers force people to go to just to take advantage of your code – some of which is good but most of which is well, to be polite, not. We have to jump through silly hoops that just mess up the beauty of code. That’s another reason that GPLed code is just a bad idea: it brings it’s ugliness to my code because hacks are needed to get around the license terms without actually violating them. I prefer to follow the rules when possible as it just makes life easier.

Ok, so we’ve established that you think that the GPL is hot damn and I think it’s communistic. Of course you’d like it as you gain benefits from being a member in the commune and don’t see the dark side of your jones town like commune with Richard Stallman as the nefarious one.

Ok, BSD, Apache, MIT, … are truly free licenses. Take the Apache project for example (or any of the big BSD projects or even a small project like minix3). These are all unrestricted licenses that don’t force sharing upon their members yet they still have people contribute freely. You see non-forced sharing is more free than forced sharing. When someone is forced to share under the GPL they are doing so against their will, I know many who have grudgingly shared. Yes, you counter with they don’t have to use your GPLed software and in some senses you are right about that, they don’t and I know many who don’t. However you falsely market your GPL software license as being “open source” when it’s not in fact “open”. The fact is that it’s “open with hooks into your flesh” as it REQUIRES you to share should you distribute your code as most/many programmers do who want to make a living from coding must.

If it’s truly open then I AS THE PROGRAMMER can choose what I want to do: (1a) including it in my program space or (2) keep it private for whatever reasons or (3) share it as I choose to or (4) contribute back as I choose to or …. many other choices that are LEFT UP TO ME!!!

Not the commune. When the commune gets to choose then it’s not free it’s communistic!!! You see when folks like you come out of the woodwork insisting that I follow your communities rules you are the ones enforcing the commune and being communistic! My mom came from a country that fell to the communists, I know many people who actually lived in real communist societies and yes some are even programmers and they have no hesitation in saying that the GPL is communistic in nature since it values the commune more than the individuals. Sure the propaganda would lead you to think otherwise however that’s just typical communistic propaganda, the official party line.

Anyway who cares really? I don’t use GPL code whenever possible. When I’m forced to use it either by it being required for a project or if it’s the only working solution out there it must be wrapped in protective condom layers so it doesn’t infect the rest of our code or other truly free code that we might want to merge with it – but we can’t merge them since the GPL virus wins in those situations resulting in our need to protect the truly free code from the nasty pernicious viral spreading of GPL.

So do as you do and continue your commitment to your communistic ways in your community of the GPL commune. I’m sure you’ll do fine.

I prefer the ways of true freedom unrestricted by being forced to share code. Apache doesn’t force me to share the code back so why should any GPL project do that? For no reason other than Richard Stallman’s geekie hippie communistic leftist agenda. So be it. We’ll wrapper the heck out of it and project ourselves and find alternatives to the GPL.

LLVM rules. LLVM proves that the GPL philosophy isn’t needed to make successful truly free and open source.

May you go in peace and leave us freedom fighters alone with our true freedom. Stallmanistic Communism not wanted here.

Just for fun:

Make sure to check out the list of links to “Tools [BSD Style]” at the bottom of the right column —>.

One Response to “BSD, Apache, MIT, et. al. are truly free and open souce when compared with the Stallmanistic Geekie Hippie Communistic License of the GPL Viral Infective Code”

  1. Richard said

    Fuck off Bill Gates

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: