the GNU GPL is a Communist ideal!!! (LOL) - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: legacy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 01, 2018, 03:52:08 pm
content: googling, I have come across a crazyblog's postby a dude named kazuo, who tries to give points on why the GNU GPL is a Communist idealHe really thinks the GPL is communist, although it eventually begrudgingly allow him to use it though for his released projects, so According to him, you can go forward with development under the AGPL, but first, you must love his logic "Stallman and Marx look similar!!!!!"Quotewow did you know if you change words things mean different thingswow, and now I am really confused on which license I should use for projects/documentation/whatever I might want to release to the internet

author: Karel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 01, 2018, 05:01:47 pm
content: I don't want to debate whether or not the GPL is a "commies" thing.But from the viewpoint of the enduser (who is usually not the writer or author of the software),the GPL is the best licence. It forces people or companies who distribute or sell modified/improved versionsto also include the sourcecode to the product they distribute or sell.Ofcourse, many companies hate the GPL because they can not take without giving back their sourcecode.They hate the tit-for-tat approach. Companies will always say that BSD style licences are the best because withthat license they can take whatever they want and give back only the parts that don't harm their business whichis usually the most interesting part for the enduser.So, in the end, it depends on who you ask. The good thing is that, when you start writing software, you are free to usewhatever license you want. And if you don't like the GPL license, simply don't use it and and refrain from using GPL'ed sourcecodein your software and refrain from bashing the GPL in general.It's a free world in the end.

author: legacy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 01, 2018, 05:18:10 pm
content: therefore can I use GPL for my projects? Or ... do I have to move to a different license?And in case, which one?

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 01, 2018, 05:19:23 pm
content: Ahah.It's not completely stupid though. Pondering whether the GPL is essentially communist is an interesting question. Obviously reducing the debate to a beard similarity is funnily inept.There isn't really just one form of communism, so we'd have to define which form we consider first.If we consider the basic "means of production" question, I don't think it can really apply to any intellectual work, and that's where this parallel would end.Copyright questions are not about means of production but about property. I'm no specialist of communism whatsoever, but what I've noticed while talking with a few people considering themselves communists or marxists is that even that property thing is unclear for them - most of them are not completely against the principle of private property. They are against it when it comes to the means of production - which is not the same thing. So I'm not sure that communism in itself would necessary be against copyright, or at least that it cared to consider it truely when most communist principles were defined.Just a thought.

author: djacobow
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 01, 2018, 05:26:17 pm
content: The GPL is obviously and intentionally communitarian. Is that controversial?Nobody is making anybody GPL their code. What's the problem? If you don't want people to get your hard work for free, don't GPL it.

author: newbrain
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 01, 2018, 05:58:45 pm
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on November 01, 2018, 05:19:23 pmI suspect that was written tongue in cheek, (or is that Poe?).To their credit, they correctly caught the copyright pedestal on which the GPL and other copyleft licenses are based.You would not imagine how many (even very smart) people have a complete soup in their head about the concept.The GPL can be dangerous in a corporate environment, but many large corporation have processes in place to correctly handle it.I have been the "Product Owner" for a large and complex piece of SW licensed with LGPL, and yes, core IP had to be treated with care and kept at a safe distance, but we did make very large contributions (and the other contributors are no small fish either!).As for Legacy's choice (nice band name), it boils down very much on what he values and how much, here below a summary of options (short and with holes you could drive a cruise ship sideways through).If he cannot care less, theWTFPLor marking the code as Public Domain are good choices.If he cares somewhat, a step up are MIT and BSD: more or less same level of freedom, but a copyright notice must be included.Apache is still very free (and the one FSF recommends as non-copyleft license), but with more elaborate clauses.Then we go into the copyleft licenses.LGPL is good if he wants the code to stay free, but still allow proprietary code to be linked.AGPL (for server side SW) and GPL: the definitive choice for SW that shall not be exploited without giving back to the community.Lastly, there's the worse choice possible: no explicit license.If no license is provided, copyright laws (practically all over the world) imply that the code can be looked at...just barely.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 01, 2018, 06:53:02 pm
content: What did people expect? The fall of the former Soviet Union was the beginning of the end of all of the things that the West bent the rules on, in order to compete with Communism.So enjoy them all while you can, without some wisdom on the part of people and recognition of this fact and a public outcry, and the creation somehow of non-captured institutions to protect people, meaning natural people, not corporations, AT THE INTERNATIONAL LEVEL, they wont last much longer, no matter how good or helpful they are. The good they provide people is exactly why they are under attack. Its likely being framed behind closed doors as a theft from businesses of business.Sure, free software is freely given to the world by people who write it but it still runs into this greater problem of vendors of like products claiming it prevents their businesses from making profits they claim to be entitled to.This is being done in hundreds of different ways. Its not happening by accident either.

author: hermit
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 01, 2018, 07:38:16 pm
content: Communism is an economic system that has been clouded by the fact that it seems to get instituted by totalitarian regimes. At least by name anyhow. Nice cover for them I guess.

author: NorthGuy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 01, 2018, 08:52:30 pm
content: Communism is an entitlement system. People are believed to be entitled to something which the society MUST provide. Since resources are limited, there must be some sort of organisation which decides who's entitled to what. Hence the totalitarian regimes, which are necessary to re-distribute the wealth in the entitlement society.GPL, without a doubt, creates an entitlement system where everyone who uses GPLed products is entitled to the results of any work produced by others. Since software usage is unlimited and participation in GPL is voluntary, it doesn't create any horrors as the communism would. Although, many people do experience a communistish feeling of entitlement towards the GPLed software even though they didn't contribute anything to its creation.

author: legacy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 01, 2018, 10:21:04 pm
content: well, the author is also believing that using the browser Firefox means contributing to obscure "nazi conspiracies"

author: legacy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 01, 2018, 10:22:11 pm
content: I think I will use a BSD license, anyway.I am reading the agreement, and it seems ok for me.

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 01, 2018, 10:30:16 pm
content: Use BSD. Free should be free. GPL limits your freedom on ways to distribute the software. BSD limits blatant ripping off, and I don't see how anyone can have problems with that.

author: helius
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 01, 2018, 10:32:46 pm
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on November 01, 2018, 05:19:23 pmThat's not the only thing they have in common. Neither is going to know who won the F.A. Cup in 1949:

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 01, 2018, 10:58:01 pm
content: Quote from: ataradov on November 01, 2018, 10:30:16 pmAgree.

author: newbrain
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2018, 12:33:26 am
content: Quote from: ataradov on November 01, 2018, 10:30:16 pmHow?You have to make the source available for three years if someuserasks for it, but if you did not intend to distribute the source, why choose an open source license?The copyright is still yours, so you remain the owner of the SW and can still decide distribute it with another license of your choosing, even a proprietary one.That said, I'm perfectly fine with BSD/MIT. Have a look also at Apache.

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2018, 12:35:49 am
content: Quote from: newbrain on November 02, 2018, 12:33:26 amIt is about code reuse. My project may be closed, but I still want to use other components. Linking with GPL code in this case is a pure nightmare.Of course you may be against people freely using your code, in which case pick GPL. I publish my code in hopes it is useful to others regardless of their intent.

author: newbrain
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2018, 12:57:21 am
content: Quote from: ataradov on November 02, 2018, 12:35:49 amSorry, but I still don't get it.If youuse(L)GPL code, you have to abide by the license - no doubt about it: that's banally true for any license.If you distributeyourcode under the GPL, you are still free to use it as you like, after complying with the distribution clauses*.This include using and distributing it under some other proprietary or a more liberal license, once again: you retain your copyright.There are many commercial examples of this, MySQL being a notable one (GPL + proprietary), and even more [u=http://chibios.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=chibios:licensing:start]ChibiOS which is distributed under a number of different licenses (look at the nice licensing matrix for what you can and cannot do).Only if you transfer your copyright, you are at the mercy of the new copyright owner.*Note: you don't even need to make it accessible on some kind of public repository, as long as it is available to your customers (but then they are free to publish it).

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2018, 01:02:19 am
content: Quote from: newbrain on November 02, 2018, 12:57:21 amIf you statically link any GPL component in your project, then essentially you have to make the whole project GPL. LGPL is different here, of course.Yes, you have to follow the rules. My assertion is that GPL rules are stupid, and GPL should not be used for libraries. For complete standalone projects it may be fine. Others may have different opinions, of course.And that's why I'm suggesting to use BSD.

author: Karel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2018, 09:49:49 am
content: Quote from: ataradov on November 01, 2018, 10:30:16 pmThere are lots of programmers who are willing to share their code & effort with other people who are willing to do the same.For these people the GPL is the perfect license. It prohibits that greedy companies take but don't give back.I complete understands this and even encourage it. Companies are commercial entities. If they need software or libraries,they should hire and pay a programmer to write it, as this is the commercial way to do things.The BSD license is only usefull for pushing a product and supporting it with free drivers or libraries in order to push the sales of some hardware.Apart from that, the BSD is a stupid licence. Practically, you are working without any payment, not in money, not in software.

author: glarsson
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2018, 11:17:44 am
content: No, the GPL is not the perfect license. We could have used some open source and contributed back bug fixes and improvements, but we can't due to the license. Releasing our source code containing both company and military classified information is simply not possible.We have used BSD licensed software and contributed bug fixes and improvements.The fact that GPL software taints everything it links to is a killer. A clear loss for the GPL license imo.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2018, 11:54:04 am
content: The answer for you, is simple then, use another license, or even write your own. Or keep your software completely closed.If you don't want GPL's restrictions, don't embed the software that uses it. There are at least a dozen different software licenses to choose from. BSD or other licenses allow a much different business model.GPL has been successful however because of its unambiguity.Its quite striking though how many successful companies literally would not exist were it not for the free GPLd software out there, surprisingly or not, some of them now seem to quietly want to pull this specific ladder to success up behind themselves.Is it so that others don't get the same advantages they had from it? It may well be.Peopleshould be aware of this shift, which may impact free and open source software among other things.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2018, 12:14:42 pm
content: Isn't static 'linking' really more like embedding the free library in the newly compiled software physically? So that it then doesn't require the shared and free library to be previously installed on the machine that runs the software, basically enclosing a copy of it inside itself?Quote from: ataradov on November 02, 2018, 01:02:19 am

author: Karel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2018, 12:23:47 pm
content: Quote from: glarsson on November 02, 2018, 11:17:44 amThis problem is obviously caused by military regulations, you should blame them, not the programmers that select the GPL for their projectsbecause they don't want to work for nothing which is, imho, completely understandable.I understand that the military can't share their sourcecode and I have no problems with that, as long as they don't link with GPL'ed software.Quote from: glarsson on November 02, 2018, 11:17:44 amI don't see why that is a loss. You seem to believe that with BSD style licenses, projects will receive more contributions.I believe it's the opposite. There are many examples of companies who used and modified GPL'ed software and didn't wanto give back their sourcecode.

author: glarsson
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2018, 12:24:43 pm
content: Quote from: cdev on November 02, 2018, 11:54:04 amThat us, as I wrote, exactly what we do. My point us that the GPL licensed code lost an opportunity as it never received any bug fixes from us (as we didn't use the code at all).

author: brucehoult
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2018, 12:50:29 pm
content: The GPL relies on freedom of association and voluntary exchange, so of course it is not communist.Communism does not accept any alternative, it does not (and can not) allow people to opt-out. From *EVERYONE* according to their ability (slavery), to everyone according to their needs (decided by the central committee).Whenever I have a choice, I contribute to BSD/MIT/Apache licensed projects, not GPL. I have personal projects that I don't mind open-sourcing (in fact want to), but I also work on commercial projects that will never be open-sourced. I don't want to have to divide my life into two parts that use different tools, different libraries. I want the things that I have put time and effort into improving to be usable in both halves of my life.GPL is acceptable for clearly delineated tools that I use and maybe even enhance but are not core to my own product. For example, the Linux kernel or gcc. I can write programs in C on Linux and compile then with gcc and link them with glibc without those programs having to be GPL.

author: sokoloff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2018, 01:07:23 pm
content: Quote from: glarsson on November 02, 2018, 11:17:44 amWait. What? I can think of cases where this is problematic, but the military equipment use case is not one of them generally.The GPL compels you to make available source code only to that set of people to whom you release the binaries. It does not obligate you to release that source code to others.So, if you're selling fighter jet radar units and you use GPL software inside, you have to make available your source code to those militaries, but not to Joe Blow on the street and not to the upstream providers of the GPL package (you don't even have to upstream any patches or changes if you choose not to, so long as you don't send them binaries).Supposing a fighter jet is shot down and the radar unit finds its way into an adversary's hands. Do you worry that a court of competent jurisdiction will compel you to release the source code to that adversary in order to remain in compliance with the GPL? I sure don't.(There are potential security concerns with open source software (of any license) being incorporated into sensitive products. If an adversary knows that your fighter is flying with software that includes open source software XYZ, there's an incentive to get a security vulnerability introduced into XYZ. This is obviously unrelated to specific choice of license.)

author: Karel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2018, 01:57:17 pm
content: Quote from: sokoloff on November 02, 2018, 01:07:23 pmVery true, I forgot to mention that. Thank you!

author: glarsson
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2018, 02:03:55 pm
content: I am aware of this. But that doesn't matter. What matters is trying to get a complex license, with varying interpretations on the net and elsewhere, past the legal department. It's just not worth the trouble.

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2018, 04:20:14 pm
content: Quote from: cdev on November 02, 2018, 12:14:42 pmYes, it is. And in my world of embedded development, that's mostly what happens, there is really no dynamic linking for MCUs. And it would be stupid if it existed, anyway.So GPL is useless for software that is designed to be embedded into other applications.

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2018, 04:25:09 pm
content: Quote from: Karel on November 02, 2018, 12:23:47 pmThere is a chance that I don't want modifications from people that don't want to willingly contribute them back and work with the project. I don't want contributions made out of spite. I understand it is author's right to not use them, but still, why make people do more work.The biggest reason for contributing back is so that your changes are integrated into mainline and you don't have to spend days porting things every time a new version comes out. And this is the driving force that will make people contribute back no matter what the licence is.

author: Karel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2018, 06:44:40 pm
content: Quote from: ataradov on November 02, 2018, 04:25:09 pmYou are an exception. Most programmers who released GPL'ed software, don't like it if somebody or some company ads an interestingfeature or addition to it and starts to sell it and make money without releasing the sourcecode of the new feature or addition.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2018, 06:57:03 pm
content: Now this is getting interesting relating to the initial topic of this thread.As ataradov clearly pointed out, free software as in GPL is not freedom of use. There is no direct connection to communism as we discussed above, but there is some definite connection with a very biased way of considering what is "free", thus potentially leading to some kind of totalitarian view of freedom. And maybe that's where we could find a remote link to communism, not in its ideas but in its essence.The english language doesn't help here either, as "free" can have different meanings and be somewhat ambiguous, which in turn makes the term "free software" ambiguous at best.Just my 2 cents.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2018, 07:32:55 pm
content: It all comes down to questions like this:Who 'owns' the Earth? Does anybody?Why?

author: sokoloff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2018, 07:47:06 pm
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on November 02, 2018, 06:57:03 pmGPL software is very much/maximally free to usefrom the perspective of the end user of that software.That's the freedom that rms is primarily concerned about. He's not at all interested (at a maximum) and probablyactively disinterestedin preserving the freedom of developers to make unencumbered proprietary use of GPL software.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2018, 08:12:37 pm
content: These days free basically is framed as the freedom to sell and buy anything of value, without any interference by anybody as to anything.Under that definition, governments and their courts can't help protect free software or free anything else because its not profitable. There cant be any new public goods so no expansions of free public higher education. The more people need something, the more profitable it has to be. The price cant be based on cost plus some percentage. Thats the old way. In other words, what some would call price gouging is being quietly defined as the 'natural' state of things.Everywhere freedom is increasingly being defined as commercial and what we think of as free software is being defined in a growing body of binding international agreements as deprecated anti-profit restriction.

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2018, 08:16:22 pm
content: Courts upheld GPL a number of times, so we are all good here.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2018, 08:28:18 pm
content: National courts aren't the forums I am really concerned about here. Its their task merely to make sure that the national laws conform to the agreements, and if they don't to rule against them.Policy on things that impact international trade are often framed as not their jurisdiction. Its very hard to say about something like this. If it doesnt effect international trade, or has been explicitly excluded, like the US did with trading in onion futures, then you are okay. If we were arguing about onion futures, the WTO and its various bodies and panels and similar US style agreements that are everything in by default, if onion futures had been carved out of them, would havenojurisdiction.But if not, they would, and decisions in them would preempt national laws.Basically, the big problem is that similar to the expansion of the EU, the trade rules on services, attempt to create a means by which corporations that span borders, can utilize whichever of their workers they want, elsewhere, without red tape. Right now, its alleged that red tape is preventing these changes which could save the world millions of dollars (actually they claim this would save much more but I dont want to scare you) currently paid to powerful special interest groups like unions and professionals in places like the US and other developed countries. You should read the developing countries positions, straight from the sources, rather than having me explain them. To do that you need to go to the various organizations arguing their points of view. Basically, they want to get rich too, they say that the wealthy countries have been reaping all the benefits of world trade and they have been stuck with all these requirements to privatize all their public services and end subsidies to various groups, such as the poor, they have made this huge sacrifice *sob* and we have been getting rich leaving their firms out of the markets that they claim signing the agreement entitles them to serve, markets which they know they can win bids for, serve for less, because they pay so little. (Under WTO law that will entitle them to the work. That is unless its automated or the rich in some other poor country underbid them)the international fora cant change national laws, just assess countries with penalties worth millions or billions of euros, zlotleys, dollars or whatever until they conform.What I am worried about is the problem of standing. People - and constructs like the GPL, may not even exist in these fora, except as markets the rights to whom are bought and sold.Not existing, we have no voice.Quote from: ataradov on November 02, 2018, 08:16:22 pmDo you know anything about the so called "Third World Debt"? Basically, there is a scheme that they have been cooking up since the 80s, that was originally proposed simply as a way to 'increase efficiency' and double profits for the owners, and also some middlemen, its supposed to keep friendly governments in power, prevent the poor (many would also say corrupt) nations from defaulting on their debts.Its going to be the largest wealth transfer in history. they clain downward but in fact it is all upward. Well, what if the firms who will be getting all those jobs, who frame it as the repayment of a debt that magically the developed nations now are supposed to owe them, claim that the GPL stands in the way of their taking full advantage of this deal? Right now everybody has access to all this software and everybody is improving it, where is the profit and especially exclusivity in that? Just like they argue they have a legal and moral right to take advantage of their #1 advantage, really low wages, they will probably argue that any rule which prevents these giant firms from making exclusive use of the software and tools they develop, even if built on top of GPLed software, must be theirs alone, because otherwise they wouldn't make the profits they claim they are entitled to, as the repayment of this debt.They may well claim these profits will be their entitlement, their payback for participating in the world trade agenda. Ive been told many times by people arguing their points of view that this was the case, some right wing free trade think tanks here in the US also take this view, after all, businesses will save a lot of money they are currently almost represented as throwing away by paying wages that are much higher than the global average) but Ive also been told by authoritative experts that their interpretation of these deals was faulty, that nobody promised them all this, unless the whole deal was wrapped up - only then. Google the phrase "single undertaking".In short, there is this huge controversy just simmering under the radar for everybody, which is the real trade dispute, the one they don't want to discuss. Its described as a very sensitive subject.

author: sokoloff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2018, 09:38:53 pm
content: Quote from: cdev on November 02, 2018, 08:28:18 pmI've got be honest here, cdev: I read this 3 or 4 times (and googled single undertaking which was a sideline to the main topic). It's hard for me to extract anything other than "some crackpots spouted off somewhere not cited with some ominous-sounding crackpottery"...

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2018, 09:58:20 pm
content: Basically, everything is on the table. There are negotiations every two years.If you want to understand whats being done you have to take the initiative to really spend some time reading the different positions. Trillions of dollars are supposedly at stake. Maybe half the world's GNP, if you trust the insanely optimistic (or pessimistic might be a better word) predictions of economists, many of whom are totally in a state of groupthink.They know that people here in the US, especially, would go nuts if we knew. Thats why they are being so secretive.Quote from: sokoloff on November 02, 2018, 09:38:53 pmWhat determines prices, specifically wages, in the real world?Competition, right?Basically they are taking us back to the 1920s, legally. But setting up an international framework so the New Deal can never be re-established again.What is called "services deregulation" is basically eliminating all the rules that which were put into place in the 20th century, after the 1920s. Its likely Social Security and Medicare will lose their protection from WTO rules and become just another investment also, Not just the regulations put in place in the 20th century, all the changes made after 2008 are also being eliminated too.WTO rules subsume national rulesregulate governments concerning all "measures affecting trade in services".

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2018, 10:17:16 pm
content: Quote from: sokoloff on November 02, 2018, 09:38:53 pmcdev likes to go on the incoherent "government is evil" rants.I don't see how this relates to software licencing at all.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2018, 10:38:25 pm
content: I suppose it is communism in a sense, people contribute what they can, and benefit from the contributions of others. Communism in and of itself is not evil, it works in small, homogenous groups such as a commune of nuns. The typical family unit is a small scale example of communism, family members contribute by working for a paycheck and/or doing chores at home and family members each benefit from the contributions of the others. If a family member is sick or injured, other members pick up the slack and carry on. Where communism breaks down is when one tries to force it on a larger group of people who do not have an inherent interest in looking out for one another. This is why on larger scales you only see it happening with totalitarian dictatorships and of course it doesn't work very well.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2018, 11:11:20 pm
content: Anything Member governments do (or dont do) any policy or change or failure to act, can't hurtbusinessas defined by theirmaking the most money.If somebody in another country can make a cogent argument to the WTO or RGFS or some other similar body that anything they do adversely impacts their profits, the WTO could demand that governments stop preventing their commercialization.Some countries are supposed to be able to cash in big on services liberalization, as the big payback for participating, or so they claim. If they claim that rules of any kind stand in their way, (and they are already doing this about a number of US laws involving visas and work permission) they could easily win if it is decided their argument holds water.Its hard to say. The entities involved appear to not all be taking the same position. One government agency in the biggest of these countries, an agency devoted entirely to their relationship with the WTO has actually published at least one fairly cogent discussion of the issue that is actually one of the better discussions of it Ive seen.Quote from: ataradov on November 02, 2018, 10:17:16 pm

author: MadTux
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2018, 11:15:15 pm
content: I try to document all my projects as good as possible and really don't care if anyone copies them.Most stuff is probably too bad, too special or too chaotic for anyone to use, so they won't. But if anyone comes along and needs exactly what I've done, I'm happy because I avoided someone to have trouble with something that I have already solved.People who think open source is communist are either capitalist or narcissistic idiots who think their work is much more important than it really is. If they make good money with it, I can understand, but the latter are idiots that make the world a worse place to be in.

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2018, 11:16:17 pm
content: Who does this rant benefit? This thread is not about what governments do, but what licence should a person pick for the project.

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2018, 11:17:59 pm
content: Quote from: MadTux on November 02, 2018, 11:15:15 pmExactly! My reward is knowing that someone benefited from my work. And if they were happy, they may refer other people. In the end this is the best way to "monetize" the stuff I publish for free.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2018, 11:28:15 pm
content: Look up the EU's "non-paper" on "Mode Five services". Countries may wrongfully try to tax free software somehow. Especially bundled container apps.Because they are / will be replacing people in large numbers, a processwhich is really only just beginning.You have to understand countries all around the globe will likely shedding jobs like crazy and they may not behave all that rationally. In fact I think that is pretty much guaranteed to be happening. It already is here in the US.Thats why I think making these "binding commitments" to trade jobs away,if indeed that is what was done, (see what i said earlier about the single undertaking) in the 1990s was perhaps the worst mistake ever made in recent policy history. These agreements are bad news for working people. We already have the GATS to thank for the 2008 financial services disaster. Thats easy to verify.EDIT: Now this is interesting, Google seems to have scrubbed away links that used to be there to "mode five" in the context of trade in services. this is probably because that is exactly what they are selling, they have a horse in the race.See if you can find this, I saved these PDFsChief Economist Note: "Thinking in a box: A ‘Mode 5’ approach to service trade"alsoTrade rules and technological change: the case for mode 5 services | International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2018, 11:29:57 pm
content: Quote from: cdev on November 02, 2018, 11:28:15 pmSo what? What this has to do with a selection of a licence? Who cares what countries may want to tax.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2018, 11:32:23 pm
content: I'm just trying to give you a heads up, don't blame me for this.Here, read this:Working Paper 37 Centre for WTO StudiesTrade Rules on Source Code: Deepening the Digital Inequities by Locking Up the Software Fortress

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2018, 11:33:39 pm
content: Quote from: cdev on November 02, 2018, 11:32:23 pmYou are hijacking threads with your political rants. Create a separate thread and complain there. People who want to see that will subscribe.

author: NorthGuy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 03, 2018, 12:12:56 am
content: Quote from: ataradov on November 02, 2018, 11:17:59 pmYou work for Microchip I've heard. Does the work you're doing for Microchip give you similar rewards - people using whatever you have done and being happy about it?

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 03, 2018, 12:46:13 am
content: Quote from: NorthGuy on November 03, 2018, 12:12:56 amI see what you are trying to do, but this is an incorrect analogy. My work for Microchip is governed by the employment contract. There is expectation of payment set by that contract. Not a single free/open source licence sets this expectation.If I change the licence of the software I create on my own time from BSD to GPL, I will not all of a sudden get paid for it. But I know for sure it will create more problems for people wanting to use it.BTW, most of the Microchip code is published either under BSD or Apache licence. And I do get paid for supporting that code. And the same would apply to my own code - it is free for taking, but I reserve the right to charge you if you need my help with it.

author: NorthGuy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 03, 2018, 01:09:41 am
content: Quote from: ataradov on November 03, 2018, 12:46:13 amLooks like you get the best of both worldsIMHO, when you design something, the feeling of satisfaction comes from the creation process (and result) itself. Choosing a license is rather a business decision.

author: kaevee
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 03, 2018, 01:26:05 am
content: FreeBSD and Linux were available for people from pretty long time.FreeBSD (BSD): Released in November 1993. 1.1.5.1 was released in July 1994.Linux (GPL) distribution (Slackware): Released in July 1993, Kernel Version 0.99.11 AlphaThough both were available with similar set of tools and capabilities, Linux ended up being used everywhere compared to FreeBSD. Today, we can see Linux in enterprise class servers, computers, mobile devices and embedded devices. Companies like Google had an option of choosing any one of them, but, they choose Linux. FreeBSD has grown leaps and bounds, but has been overshadowed by Linux.Notwithstanding the restrictions imposed by GPL, it has done good for the community. People in developing world would have not had access to technologies at a cost affordable to them. For example millions of people in India could not have bought a mobile phone for $100 and go online for $2/month (1GB per day with unlimited calls).

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 03, 2018, 01:34:26 am
content: Quote from: kaevee on November 03, 2018, 01:26:05 amThat is not for licensing reasons, for sure. Big companies bet on Linux and supplied it with development kits, so that's what people started to use, and it snowballed from there.Linux may have been easier to port to new targets, but this advantage is marginal. Although even marginal things may be a deciding factor.Linux has the advantage of being standalone. A lot of our customers just use the kernel we've built for our hardware and don't even bother building it themselves, much less extending it. And whatever happens in user land is not affected by the fact that Linux is GPL.At the same time, for us the major incentive to contribute back to the project is not compliance with GPL, but the need to maintain our patches if changes are not mainlined. Same applies to other companies as far as I can tell. So if Linux was licensed differently, it would not affect contributions from the corporations that want their code in the project. And companies that don't want to share their code can still do so (Nvidia) or they can publish a huge mess of patches that nobody wants to deal with.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 03, 2018, 01:43:21 am
content: The relative freedom of Linux from encumbrances makes a huge difference in many situations. Linux was a game changer for me, I know that. This is why the idea of free software and free software licensing needs to be given protection it doesnt currently enjoy at an international level. Read that paper I cited earlier, its very much worth reading. BTW, its from India, Kaevee.Working Paper 37 Centre for WTO StudiesTrade Rules on Source Code: Deepening the Digital Inequities by Locking Up the Software Fortress

author: NorthGuy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 03, 2018, 02:05:43 am
content: Quote from: kaevee on November 03, 2018, 01:26:05 amApple chose BSD. There are about 5x times more Macs in the world than Desktop Linuxes. Even with smartphones, iPhone is ahead of Android I believe.Although, GPL is irrelevant here. Linux is an OS. Its GPL doesn't apply to the applications you develop and run under Linux.

author: brucehoult
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 03, 2018, 03:55:03 am
content: Quote from: ataradov on November 03, 2018, 01:34:26 amI think the biggest factor may have been that Linux has been more progmatic about concentrating on performance rather than some pure architecture.But mostly it's just that at some point more people were working on improving Linux than were working on BSD or Windows or anything else, and so it improved faster, which made more people work on it, which made it improve faster, which made more people work on it...It could probably have been either one.QuoteExactly.That's the main reason, for example, that we're happy about RISC-V becoming a standard architecture for LLVM in the current release cycle. We can and do maintain our own branches in our own repos, but when everyone in the world who is making changes to LLVM compiles the RISC-V back end and runs the RISC-V tests whenever they make changes, then if they break something it's *their* problem to fix it before they upstream their changes, not our problem to fix it afterwards.

author: kaevee
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 03, 2018, 04:27:44 am
content: Quote from: brucehoult on November 03, 2018, 03:55:03 amI think it was commercial off the shelf software vendors who helped the adoption of Linux to some extent. They released their software for Linux (using GPL or some license similar close to GPL). GPL suited them perfectly as they did not want lose hold on their cash cow, the corporations who are paying them for sales, support and maintenance. Some of the commercial software released as GPL were ported to *BSD flavors, but not all of them.Further, if a company wants to go commercial in future, they would probably release their code using GPL as it allows them to control who competes with them. I have seen many projects which started out as GPL and turn into commercial products. Whether we like it or not, GPL has been attractive option to commercial software vendors.

author: hermit
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 03, 2018, 02:20:21 pm
content: Quote from: NorthGuy on November 03, 2018, 02:05:43 amNice to quote desktops and leave out that Linux owns the server market and super computing world. But if you want to throw in desktops don't forget Chromebook is up and coming using the same ploy Apple used to get market share, the educational space.https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/linux-market-share/

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 03, 2018, 05:31:50 pm
content: Communist? In my opinion, GPL is the one that ensures software projects compete on an even field, and is therefore closer to the free market model than communism!Here's the typical licenses I use:CC0 or Public Domainfor code examples, including library use examplesFreeBSD / 2-clause BSD / Simplified BSD licensefor drivers, dual-GPL-2.0 if contributed to the Linux kernelGPLv3for free/open source applications and service daemonsAGPLfor web-based servicesLGPLfor libraries, and for graphical user interfaces for proprietary librariesProprietary licenses, when required to support the developmentWhen I use a variant of the GPL, I do so because I wish to ensure that any derivatives will be licensed under the same or a compatible license. That way I ensure that if someone creates a derivative, the two implementationscompeteon an even field; and if I find a nice enhancement in theirs, I can avail myself to their enhancements as they availed to code I wrote, and enhance my version. To me, it is all about having the implementations compete on an even field.It has also occurred that a part of a GPL-licensed project turned out to be useful in someone elses completely unrelated, proprietary project. I have provided a differently-licensed copy, free of charge, when I have ascertained that it would not affect the "competitive field" -- that the proprietary project is not in the same field to begin with.What I do not do, is shrink-wrap EULAs that restrict user rights. (I do not want to restrict how a single user uses my projects; all I need is control over the distribution, really.)I do prefer copyleft (like GPL) over permissive (like BSD/MIT/Apache) licenses for two main reasons: one is practical, the other is emotive.Users should always be able to adjust their tools to suit their workflow, rather than having to adjust their workflow to suit their tools. This only works when they have the sources, to at least the user facing part of the tool. Permissive licenses allow binary-only distribution.I love competition, when the rules are the same for all players. I find copyleft licenses to be a simple, easy ruleset, which allows good competition between software projects; and ensures that all code sharing paths can be reciprocal. That is, copyleft licenses ensure that a "player" cannot avail themselves to other "players" sources, but keep their own proprietary. When the projects compete for usefulness/users, I find copyleft rules preferable, emotionally, to permissive rules.The first one means that if you ascribe toUnix philosophyandKISS principlelike I do, having the sources for your tools, or at least their user-facing parts (so you can edit them if needed), is very useful if you have the development skills.

author: HB9EVI
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 03, 2018, 07:45:06 pm
content: Well, to admit - if GNU GPL is considered communist, I have no problem with that communist attitude;I appreciate the opensource and free-software community very much, and, if I can, I contribute in finding and fixing problems and bugs.After first starting with Debian in 96' and a 3 year intermezzo in the BSD world, I stucked with Debian - on servers from the very beginning, on all clients since 2003.And guess what: I'm not missing anything. I got every piece of hard- and software to work; sometimes with temporary workarounds only, but there was never the moment, I wished Windows back. I'm living a happy IT life with GNU Linux only - the only pure proprietary devices in the networks are the DSL modem and the ethernet switch.I admit, I switched away from PIC mcus to AVR 'cause of the lack of a fullfeatured opensource environment; yea, I know there is SDCC, but it's really quite far away from being complete yet; and since I did the step to 32bits, I have GNU ARM gcc, that's all I need.Personally I don't want to spend money for software, although I bought an ancient Win7 licence for 5 bucks to run on my laptop - in case I have a stubborn piece of customer hardware unwilling to be maintained or updated on the Linux way. Otherwise I'm glad if I can save my bucks for the hardware.The ones who want to use proprietary software, shall go for it. The only serious problem I see with the use of it, are our governments and medical facilities - which certainly work on sensitive data, also my personal ones, which I don't really want to see in hands of Big Data, where MS and Google certainly belong to. That also the reason, why I use my cell phone for nothing else but calling.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 03, 2018, 07:50:17 pm
content: How muchmoneyhave you spent on this "Debian" and "Gnu" ?

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 03, 2018, 07:52:15 pm
content: Quote from: cdev on November 03, 2018, 07:50:17 pm$0, I guess. Unless you count some fluffy stuff like time spent learning a different system.It is commmunist in a way that everyone has donated a bit of their time to get a great system. But again, I doubt it was only due to GPL. Debian has plenty of software licensed under more permissive licenses.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 03, 2018, 08:23:32 pm
content: Quote from: ataradov on November 03, 2018, 07:52:15 pmNo, that'scommons, not communism. We humans need that sort of a commons to maintain our sciences, languages, and culture. I don't think it is communism...Quote from: ataradov on November 03, 2018, 07:52:15 pmDefinitely not "only due to GPL", no. Yet, I distinctly recall that in mid-nineties to the turn of the century, Linux gained ground with respect to BSDs, exactly because potential developers chose the copyleft ecosystem over the permissive one. Lots of flamewars and misunderstandings and such. The kernel being GPL made it natural to pair it with GNU userspace tools, and that gave a really big boost to Linux' popularity among developers at least.I would like to point out that one should really make a distinction between kernel drivers, other kernel development, hardware interface libraries, and userspace applications. Even Linux kernel driver developers recommend using a dual GPL-BSD license for new drivers, so that they can be used in other OSes (BSDs in particular) as well. Similarly for hardware interface libraries: they are just a thin layer between hardware and userspace software,interface glue, and therefore using a permissive license makes most sense, to ensure the library gets as widely used as possible. Internal kernel innovations, like scheduler or I/O elevator details, are what really distinguish operating system kernels, so to compete with a level playing field, Linux kernel devs want to keep those GPL'ed. Userspace applications is the space with most competition, and permissive licenses allow closed-source derivatives to compete with their open source ancestors; and that is definitely not a good thing for users like myself (who are capable of modifying their software tools to fit their own needs).So, to compare licenses, one should be very specific about the use case, because it matters a lot.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 03, 2018, 08:47:17 pm
content: QuoteRemember what happened to the commons in the UK,it was enclosed. In theEnclosure Acts.Thats whats happening now on a global scale to all the remaining 'commons' of every kind. Everywhere, just about. Only a few countries are not in this system in some way. (And they may be soon, as major pressure is being put on them).Everything needed by people is being aggressively defined as commercially owned, in international fora where people do not exist as legally present.Huge amounts of property that has been farmed from before history by people is being sold off to corporations and those people just shooed off like they were flies, all around the world.Even the existence of a right to exist is in essence, disputed, as illustrated by the battle over whether there could be a right to drinking water in the EU. (As far as I could tell they couldn't come to agreement).This is the context driving my fear for FOSS.I am afraid corporations and the nations that are owned by them might argue that it has no right to exist because its preventing profits from being made which otherwise would be made.So advocates need to get ready for this and set up some international body that supersedes these corporate owned courts to sue countries. Its going to be very hard because some would literally go nuts at the very idea that people, the prey, might be given some representation when so much work over so much time, has gone into stripping them of it, see the problem?

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 03, 2018, 09:21:39 pm
content: There is absolutely no way anyone can stop me from publishing the code.Corporations benefit hugely from FOSS, most of the contributions to the Linux kernel is done by corporations. So even if there is some question which is better, open or closed, it would be a battle of corporations with other corporations, not corporations and people.Stop worrying about nothing and go write some free software.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 03, 2018, 09:41:23 pm
content: I really wouldn't count on their help. That would be very very unwise. The biggest corporations have an agenda and its not what we think it is.This is a discussion about the new NAFTA that although not about this specific issue, might give some insight into how everything is being skewed in one trade deal after another to force deregulation globally, a web of deregulations that creates entitlements to compensation if anything is subsequently re-regulated, forever. No, people cant vote to reverse mistakes, such as privatization of large areas of policy (we should be very worried about public education) or shedding of allegedly 'expensive' protections, (how much value do you think might be argued is lost because some software is free?) Once something like health care becomes even slightly commercial it gets put on a ratchet bearing path that is designed to totally commercialize it bit by bit,it matters not in the least how unworkable the outcome might be, thats even framed as a plus (profits)Needed drugs become insanely expensive? Great!"People should have to pay a lot if a drug saves their life", (even if it was available before for pennies).Really, the hidden picture is just insane, and it sets up endless numbers of traps, where taxpayers must pay literally a kings ransom, to ever fix these things. "Future expected lost profits".One corrupt government can sell out a country so badly that everybody would have to leave to ever prosper again, while poor. These agreements even survive a nation's dissolution and subsequent creation of a new country in the same territory. Drug prices soaring into the stratosphere? based on an argument that software is getting more and more important, Software might be forced into becoming just as expensive. These courts are above national courts like the "Supreme" Court in the US, and are rigged, and the people don't even exist in them. They only work one way, corporations sue countries. Countries don't get to sue corporations in them.FOSS licenses would be portrayed as regulations that if enforced by a governments courts, would present forbidden trade barriers.https://www.iatp.org/documents/new-nafta-imposes-hurdles-delay-and-weaken-public-protections

author: legacy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 03, 2018, 10:13:14 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on November 03, 2018, 05:31:50 pmGreat summarized! Thanks a lot!

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 04, 2018, 12:18:39 am
content: Its worthwhile to read up on the English "Enclosure Acts" (or "Inclosure Acts") because many of the arguments used against the peasantry there might well be used against the free software peasantry around the world today in order to take it away. "making the field more productive" etc.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 04, 2018, 01:51:29 am
content: Quote from: cdev on November 03, 2018, 09:41:23 pmI kinda see where you're going (combining this with all your other posts), but I'm really not sure I get your point though.Even free software licenses can only be defended through justice courts. If you ever lived in a country where the justice system had become corrupt (as you seem to be very wary of government corruption, which I don't completely disagree with), the license would probably not help you much.So I'm not sure it's a guarantee against the totalitarian regimes that you seem to be fearing (and again I can understand that).

author: NorthGuy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 04, 2018, 02:58:47 am
content: Quote from: blueskull on November 04, 2018, 12:22:14 amLes Trois Mousquetaires "Un pour tous, Tous pour un". I think it pre-dates communism.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 04, 2018, 03:09:44 am
content: Quote from: NorthGuy on November 04, 2018, 02:58:47 amActually, not really.The story takes place in the 17th but the book was written around the same time that first books on communism were (1844). Not sure if there is any link or if this is purely fortuitous. Haven't studied Alexandre Dumas enough to know that.

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 04, 2018, 03:11:40 am
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on November 04, 2018, 03:09:44 amDumas popularized Latin "Unus pro omnibus, omnes pro uno", which is older than any of this.

author: brucehoult
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 04, 2018, 04:02:47 am
content: Quote from: NorthGuy on November 04, 2018, 02:58:47 amVoluntary association is the opposite of communism.Not everyone in a population will agree with what the communists want them to do, and the only thing that can be done about it is to kill them. Stalin and buddies killed probably 20 million of their own citizens. Mao killed probably 40 million between the actual Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward.Aside from the sheer evil involved in this, it at the same time takes the most sadistic and ruthless people to the top, and eliminates the artists, inventors, and good teachers, which causes the downfall of the country within a few decades unless the entire world is conquered first.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 04, 2018, 02:42:10 pm
content: I suspect that both figures, especially the Chinese one are way too low. Mass purges like Stalin's "terror" and the similar events in other totalitarian nations of both the left and right, definitely do fit your description. Totalitarianism is explained in great detail in Hannah Arendt's The Origins of Totalitarianism (1960) which is one of the best political analyses of anything anywhere, and also available to read online and it is very much worth reading. Robert J. Lifton has also written some extremely good books about totalitarianism and cults including communism. His book on thought reform and totalism in China is particularly good.But, in terms of deaths, the 'famines' are a different thing, I think should be clear. They impact a much broader number of people, and for that reason the Holodormer and the Great Leap Forward and the subsequent 'famine' are complicated events worth studying asextreme examples of administrative failures and denial. Jasper Becker's book, Hungry Ghosts, which I have but unfortunately have not been able to find, (Ive literally been ransacking my house trying to find it) is a very good, well researched work on them both. (It also includes the 1995-1997 North Korean famine which is structurally quite similar)IMHO, something like thatcould happen under any government with an extremely rigid ideological system that is inflexibly trying to represent itself and its ideology as perfect, and force it onto a society..For example, a very similar mass starvation occurred in Ireland, part of Great Britain at the time, the world's richest country, in 1847, for quite similar reasons as the others.

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 04, 2018, 05:30:09 pm
content: I don't get how is BSD licence related to any of this.I personally use BSD licence, since it matches exactly what I want to have:1. Share the code, and let people use it for whatever they want. Including closed and commercial products. If someone can make money off may code - go ahead, I sure can't. I do have faith in humanity, and believe that if someone benefited from what I have done, they will contribute back. One way or another.2. I want the credit. Because this is the only form of "payment" i can realistically extract from my projects.3. I don't want my name to be used to promote the products. I want to avoid advertisements like "This nuclear bomb is guaranteed to destroy the world if detonated, since it is powered by the very reliable code made by Alex Taradov".That's all. No politics, no nothing.

author: legacy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 04, 2018, 05:37:08 pm
content: Quote from: ataradov on November 04, 2018, 05:30:09 pmif you happen to work in a community/forum/whatever with a jerk admin who tries to imposes his stupid way, you can show him the door about collaboration, and the BSD license allows you to close the source, and just keep releasing binaries.I am frankly tired by this jerks on the internet, really tired.

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 04, 2018, 05:40:31 pm
content: Ah, ok. This is not really a problem for me. I don't contribute much to other projects.

author: legacy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 04, 2018, 05:43:53 pm
content: Besides, the BSD license also protects you when your code implies you had signed for any documentation under Confidential Disclosure Agreements, e.g. datasheet for a chip, which is a must-have when you are writing an hw-emulator. There is your name on the legal piece of paper, and it's all on your responsibility, and if the admin is a complete jerk, you can close the source, and just keep releasing binaries, and no lawyer can touch you even if the jerk-admin wants to revenge.The human nature must not be underestimated.

author: sokoloff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 04, 2018, 05:49:42 pm
content: Quote from: legacy on November 04, 2018, 05:43:53 pmThe power of a judge to compel discovery must also not be underestimated. "Haha, it's closed source now!" is not going to be any kind of effective defense against a lawsuit asking for discovery.

author: legacy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 05, 2018, 08:25:51 am
content: Quote from: sokoloff on November 04, 2018, 05:49:42 pmLOL, that's true, they can always get and quote you in a court on a technicalityThe best option ever would be about giving yourself a new girlfriend experienced litigation graduate in legal studies so she can defend you in a court (or bring you a basket of oranges ... in case ... you end got in prison) ... however, the BSD-license is able to close the source(1) while it's still opensource for the binary, which is a good thing to make people confused, which is also good to discourage someone from doing something bad like making you stand up in a court, cause, in this case, you can double quote him(1) for which you may violate the CDA just by providing reserved information through your notes on the code, and through the code itself. That's no good.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 05, 2018, 12:44:46 pm
content: Hmmm..https://www.law.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Stumberg-Guide-to-GATS-Dom-Reg-5-19-10.pdfThe devil is in the details."GATS & non-discriminatory measuresWhen adopted in 1994, GATS included trade rules to prohibit quantitative limits onmarket accessand prohibit discrimination.Negotiators could not agree on how to dealwith non-discriminatorymeasures that affect trade in services. Hence, they called fornegotiations in Article VI:4 to ensure that regulations are: “(a) based on objective andtransparent criteria, such as competence and the ability to supply the service; (b)notmore burdensome than necessary to ensure the quality of the service;and (c)in the caseoflicensing procedures, not in themselves a restriction on the supply of the service.”

author: sokoloff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 05, 2018, 03:46:56 pm
content: In that context, licensing refers to business/trade licensing, not software/copyright license, IMO.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 05, 2018, 03:55:41 pm
content: I wouldn't be so certain, in fact I think they explicitly say over and over that the words in these agreements are intended to be given the widest possible interpretation, taking them in plain language meaning.Read Sturmberg's paper on domestic regulation I posted the link to. Its very good.Also, because the goal of these things is literally to remake the entire world in a way that would normally require a war without firing a shot, I think the chances of it being so narrowly interpreted in this context are very very low..Everything is twisted around into meanings nobody who doesn't understand their intrinsic logic understands, which is practically everybody, almost nobody understands their logic, thats the plan, thats how they are doing what they are doing. And they are binding in perpetuity. They do an end run around democracy.