Re: Fuzzy machine learning framework v1.2

[Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com>]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3333 bytes --]

Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> wrote:

> Nomen Nescio writes on comp.lang.ada:
> > Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> >> Kulin wrote:
> >>> "J-P. Rosen" wrote:
> >>>> Le 28/05/2012 12:08, Dmitry A. Kazakov a Ècrit :
> >>>>> This release is packaged for Windows, Fedora (yum) and Debian
> >>>>> (apt). The software is public domain (licensed under GM GPL).
> >>>> Just to be picky: if it's licensed under GMGPL, it's free software,
> >>>> but it's not public domain.
> >>> 
> >>> Just to be picky,
> >> 
> >> In this case the discussion hinges on the word "free" and its uses
> >> with software. Since there is no single definition of the word "free"
> >
> > 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.
> 
> Stallman's only "nefarious purpose" is to prevent people from removing
> freedom from free software.

No, Stallman is a self-affirmed Marxist atheist who has as his stated
purpose (see GNU Free Software Manifesto) the elimination of proprietary
software and to that end, the destruction of programming as a profession.
He's a sick puppy, and nothing he has done in his life has ever had any
connection to freedom. He's the angry young man from a rich family who
pretends to champion the cause of the unwashed masses, and you fall for
it. He's the Stalin of Software and you're just another one of his loyal
victims. You would think people would learn, but you just don't get
it. There's more money and glory in religion than there is in software, so
he built a church and you fill the collection boxes.

You are twisting words to suit your own misrepresentations. Software is
only free if it has no restrictions. GPL is a forcible open source
license. It has much to do with open source but nothing to do with freedom.

If you license your software under BSD or MIT licenses, it remains free
forever. No matter what anybody does, it doesn't change what you
released. If you believe in freedom then you won't force people to think
like you think or do what you want. GPL clearly shows the intent is force
and obedience to Stallman's sick ideals, it has nothing to do with freedom.

> Therefore, freedom is not the total absence of restriction, 

Based on no argument at all, "therefore?" No, not therefore. Freedom has one
definition and that is absence of restrictions, constraints, etc. Forcing
people to do what you want is not called freedom, it's called bullying. And
lying to try and redefine terms like freedom to mean something it's not
smacks of pure evil.

> it is the fact that the only restriction is "thou shalt not make this
> software proprietary".

That is also false. You would think people in comp.lang.ada would understand
that since Adacore made a business out of making GPL software proprietary.

> For this reason, the GPL defends freedom much more vigorously than the BSD
> or MIT licenses do.

That statement is a perversion of reality. GPL defends the social platform
and Marxist ideals and sick agenda of Richard Stallman, and nothing
else. BSD and MIT licenses are true free software licenses. GPL is like
herpes. It's a gift nobody wants if they would think it through, although in
the heat of the moment sometimes people make terrible mistakes.