Ludovic Brenta 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.