Free right to licensed code is up to the individuals with a goal

Let's say I hand out free lemons. In a place respecting my rights, I am part of the lemon trademark business, and I am giving away property. Now, someone can take those lemons and develop their own skills to produce into lemonade and sell it for their chosen price. Why should they have the right to do so, when all they've done is rebrand the product? The most they've done is add a simple technique, a style, and maybe some sugar. If I wanted to know how he produced that lemonade, it should be in my right to sell him those rights.

The problem is that people are comparing code and developing that code to "property". It's the same as physical property. This is like company shares or money that can easily be reproduced and transferred. You don't give away these things without recognizing either a transfer in trademark, or knowledge/transaction of how to further make use of that derived product. The derived product, resulting from the lemons code.

Instead of worrying about trying to take someone elses business for my own free use, just because I made some code, it only makes sense to keep a company and its workers all motivated towards caring about what they love to work on most. Whatever gives them possibility for the most innovation, without stealing each other's ideas, and labeling them as something else.

BSD is about different flavors. You actually accomplish shit. Currently, its the best there is right now, instead of relying on everyone contributing to the same bucket of madness, licenses, and programmers unwilling to make their own code, and consumers unwilling to spend money on a product they care about.

>>58514658
>>58514666
tl;dr or bust

Some examples would be:

Google using the majority of Linux to create the Android brand and then slowly adding non-free code loaded alongside the GPL code. This non-free code essentially makes the whole point of free as in freedom, for the users, completely useless. And it will eventually see the android system as totally useless other than by companies also wanting to profit off users by taking away their freedom.

Reddit open-sourced their code because it is their ideology and choice for the users. It makes the code open while also giving the ability for anyone else to develop their own instance of the program, without putting reddit at a commercial disadvantage, where they would not be able to profit from their own work and development, to use the other company's code derived from reddit. However, while it gives a lot of freedom, the GPL code of reddit also includes closed source code that involves the anti-vote botting. In effect, the overall usability of the code is diminished because it is not possible to make sense of the whole function without seeing both sides of the input and output. So, the ways that vote counts are manipulated, is still unknown, and reddit could not be truly copied as a free instance.

>>58514694
Sorry, its the first time i thought of it.

Ok so, I'm saying that GPL allowing non-free code to function with GPL code, is the same as labeling the whole thing as a closed source program. And this is wrong because it promotes unwillingness to accomplish new ideas and advancement of technology.

>>58514810
BSD is also problematic because it allows a company to take a brand and basically add whatever they want or not, close source it, and sell, with no benefit of freedom to read code, or free as in free beer, for the users and programmers.

However, it does give the ability to not muck around with legal laws constraining code because some nerd wanted a transaction of code, just because someone took a portion of their code. This gives better freedom to companies to advance on new ideas and offer products for people to buy. It is up to people what to buy, and up to companies how they want to sell.

That said, it is a problem that there is only a view on this as property, when code and programs do not exist as a single entity of property. They can be copied easily, just like trademark can be. It makes sense that property and trademark need to be combined.

A license should exist to protect the programmer's code from a similar purpose. The code should be shared only as long as the intent of the company is not to steal and rebrand upon an established program, but to develop a program and system on its own.

Otherwise, people should be representing that transaction as their right to control these freely transferable codes, under some form of taxation or oversight. After all, the companies are profitting under their laws and country's market.

Forgot to mention, this goes about how linux is being heralded as the most usable system and contributed by many companies, yet it departs further and further from individual development and customization and UNIX philosophy.

Without the ability to work further on code that works really well, there's no ability to make further advancements in technology that is cool and interesting. People need to start giving money to programmers for jobs like Stallman has always said. To care for each other and share code and ideas. Pay to those whom you want your individual needs to meet. UNIX philosophy gives this ability do whatever you like. BSD protects this because it makes sure the original code is always compatible with the new and best components. Any new brands developed by other companies can be reimagined into something better that can be added to the UNIX system.

>>58515052
The technical hacker obsession of making sure code is giving back has limited Stallman from making sure that GPL take into any development, while simultaneously allowing itself to exist amongst non-free additions. It should not be this way if programmers are to truly improve and make new code, instead of using the same old junk.

You see it with free projects based on the enormous GPL system. Nothing new or innovative is made because noone has the time or money to figure out something better. Meanwhile, BSD companies and companies taking advantage of GPL are promoting new technology and ideas, that others can then improve upon in their own projects.

An apt comparison is that GPL is the focus on "my code" and BSD is about "working on a project".

>>58514658
In the copyleft mindset, GPL is a freest license
In a permissive mindset, public domain is the most free
BSD is neither here nor there in regards to freedom

Great point let's see what this produces

GPL - companies, business, money, success, running the internet
BSD - dropouts, vocal forum turds, license circlejerking, living in an apartment

Ironically, BSD's idealogically proliferates more than anything produced by GPL, even though GPL was meant to produce more code that programmers can all share and look at.

GPL was created as defense against corporations wanting to take user's freedom.

To do more than that, and truly give consumers and programmers power over what they use, purpose and intent needs to be involved so that programmers can make use of the majority of their code, knowledge can be built upon, and consumers can make the economic choice to be free.

>>58515181
That's not the point. I'm talking about the real purpose:
>>58515183

The argument over who is nerdiest is irrelevant because the reality is that
>GPL - companies, business, money, success, running the internet
goes around in a circle of accomplishing little innovation, mostly only money taken from people to take over their freedoms.


>>58515149
BSD is about freedom for anyone to use code and advance technology, doesn't matter who uses it or how. The problem with that is that how it is used can easily infringe on the same project or purpose that the original creator had made out of code. The business aspect of it copies the code, and uses it for their own gain, easily using this power to deny freedom to consumers.

>>58515181
The internet is becoming mindless consumption and repetitive trash,
all because of companies using the take whatever code you want and rebrand it with loads of money mindset.

The only thing that stops this from becoming worse is the barrier of the GPL on those successful projects, that limits companies from taking everything and closing it off, denying programmers that donate their free time access to development of their own code
>>MS sells its code for money. People who release under the GPL sell their code for more code. It's a commercial transaction: you can can use my code for anything, and in exchange I get to see and play around with all the derivative code your produce.
and consumers from having the choice to use free as in freedom solutions.

>>58515280
not really. I basically shat it out in 20 minutes after trying to figure out why a BSD window manager and desktop environment is useful compared to GNU GPL.

I basically want the innovation that can be derived from building multiple components in a UNIX plhilosophy. That hard work is not there in the GPL environment, even though this guy >>58515181 says
>GPL - companies, business, money, success, running the internet

It's not true success if all the ability to take control of your life is control by the freedom denied to you by companies selling you a product that you have no intelligent use for. Give me a good reason why smartphones are so great, other than for playing outdated video games and typing and sending insecure emails for your job that your company owns your life with.

>>58515417
The fact that you can't talk about the code that you work with in your company, and share that knowledge with others, shows how companies control people's lives.

There's no reason for this manipulation of thoughts to exist. It's like there is no law that prevents people from getting a raise or talking to each other about their wage, but companies tell them they can't do that, so they don't.

It's wrong, and this lack of discussion and friendliness between people is exactly what Stallman wanted to fix.

>>58515181
Wrong. See what happens. Using GPL but using BSD ways. GPL is practically a placeholder, and Google would close-source anything they could, just like they have for all their privacy disrupting closed source Google app store modules.

Google changes WebM license, now pure BSD
https://www.freebsdnews.com/2010/06/08/google-webm-license-pure-bsd/

>>58515571
*a placeholder against companies taking over code desired for freedom.