Re: Fuzzy machine learning framework v1.2

[Kulin <remailer@reece.net.au>]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2668 bytes --]

Thomas L�cke <thomas@12boo.net> wrote:

> On 05/28/2012 08:34 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote:
> > Freedom means the absence of restriction, and it doesn't matter that serfs
> > and GPL fanbois have participated in Stallman's obscene twisting of the
> > concept for his nefarious purposes.
> 
> 
> In what part of human life does freedom equal a complete absence of
> restrictions? It might mean an absence of undue restrictions, but that
> is surely not the same as no restrictions at all.

There is freedom and then there is everything else. It's an ideal. Really,
calling GPL encumbered software "free" is silly at best and at worst a dirty
lie.

> Freedom is being able to do what you want, until your actions infringe
> on other peoples freedom.

That is not the definition of freedom. That is the definition of good
citizenship.

> Nobody is forcing you to use GPL software. You are free to use software
> released under licenses that are more in tune with your personal ideals.

I don't use anybody else's libraries or code in anything I write, except on
UNIX where I usually have to link against the libc. The discussion is
especially relevant on comp.lang.ada since GNAT, developed on U. S.
Government funds (ie. at public expense) was privatized by AdaCore and
the gcc-ada derives from that and I predict will eventually be all GPL.

> That is freedom for you. You should enjoy that, instead of trying to
> limit the freedom of others.

Agreed. Now explain how I am trying to limit the freedom of others? All I
have said is GPL is not "free software".  Am I limiting your freedom by
speaking the truth? That's political correctness gone amok.

> The GPL serves its purpose, as do all the other open source licenses.

I don't agree. The GPL is not about software licensing. It's about socialist
policy and an agenda that any professional programmer would reject. 

> And please stop with the name-calling. People are not liars simply
> because they don't agree with your definition of what freedom is.

Freedom is a word that is well-defined. Stallman is a damn liar for twisting
the definition completely out of reality and calling a viral, forcible open
source license a "free software" license. But because he is a self-described
Marxist and atheist, lying and propagandizing are legitimate tools for
him. If you want to be duped, or if you're a socialist and you don't believe
in private ownership and think everything a person does automatically
belongs to the government or the world, etc. that's your business.
However, I won't remain silent when people say GPL has anything to do with
freedom. That's a lie, and anyone who suggests otherwise is a liar.