From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,25457a5aee9eaa04 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Received: by 10.68.191.225 with SMTP id hb1mr13988858pbc.5.1338410816393; Wed, 30 May 2012 13:46:56 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Path: l9ni1156pbj.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!news.glorb.com!news.alt.net!news.dizum.com!sewer-output!mail2news From: Nomen Nescio Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Fuzzy machine learning framework v1.2 References: Message-ID: <8839eb17d97d8e1ca84b2fdbb972500c@dizum.com> Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 22:46:45 +0200 (CEST) Mail-To-News-Contact: abuse@dizum.com Organization: mail2news@dizum.com Date: 2012-05-30T22:46:45+02:00 List-Id: "Zhu Qun-Ying" wrote: > On Tue, 29 May 2012 14:35:04 -0700, Nomen Nescio wrote: > > >> It is stunning to see programmers who are used to formal, > >> rational thinking, becoming irrational. ;-) ;-) > > > > There's plenty of that going around! > > > >> The *combination* of someone else's work and yours is not your own > >> work! > > > > Right! > > > >> The resulting work is *not* the sole intellectual property > >> of either contributor. > > > > Right again! So, why does something think it's reasonable to suggest that > > you have to open your source because he opened his source? That's going > > too > > far. All that's reasonable is to say "if you use this you have to also > > provide the source for it." The fact GPL infects anything that touches > > it is > > wrong, and it's probably not legally enforceable. > > > > Then don't use it. I don't use it. Try reading the thread instead of adding to the noise level ;-) > If your code deadly need other's code to function, then respect their > choice of license. I don't need anybody's code to function except the OS and on UNIX, libc (I usually use syscalls..) > You are using your definition of freedom to overtake other's thought. Let me see if I understand this. A guy from China is lecturing on the topic of freedom? It's well-understood where I come from. The Land of the FREE and the Home of the Brave. At least it was when I grew up... > I think RMS's GPL is more realistic to respect the author's will. He is > not forcing you to use GPL for your code, he is not forcing you to use GPL > code neither. You keep missing the point. The point is the GPL is not a free software license. It's a viral, forcible open source license. > That is your definition of "free software", it is perfectly acceptable to > lots of people, including me to call GPL software as free software. But you're damn liars, and usually socialists and atheists, so you have no compunction about lying, propagandizing, expropriating private property, bullying, and killing people who get in your way, since you have no moral compass. Have a nice day!