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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD, FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no 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 10.68.219.170 with SMTP id pp10mr3843988pbc.1.1338574362454; Fri, 01 Jun 2012 11:12:42 -0700 (PDT) Path: l9ni8312pbj.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: darkestkhan Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Fuzzy machine learning framework v1.2 Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 11:12:41 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: References: <8839eb17d97d8e1ca84b2fdbb972500c@dizum.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 193.59.74.181 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Trace: posting.google.com 1338574362 12605 127.0.0.1 (1 Jun 2012 18:12:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 18:12:42 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <8839eb17d97d8e1ca84b2fdbb972500c@dizum.com> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=193.59.74.181; posting-account=nuF4hQoAAADjc2KKS1rOkzxWWEmaDrvx User-Agent: G2/1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: 2012-06-01T11:12:41-07:00 List-Id: On Wednesday, May 30, 2012 8:46:45 PM UTC, Nomen Nescio wrote: > "Zhu Qun-Ying" wrote: >=20 > > On Tue, 29 May 2012 14:35:04 -0700, Nomen Nescio wro= te: > >=20 > > >> 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 goi= ng =20 > > > too > > > far. All that's reasonable is to say "if you use this you have to als= o > > > provide the source for it." The fact GPL infects anything that touche= s =20 > > > it is > > > wrong, and it's probably not legally enforceable. > > > > >=20 > > Then don't use it. >=20 > I don't use it. Try reading the thread instead of adding to the noise lev= el ;-) >=20 > > If your code deadly need other's code to function, then respect their > > choice of license.=20 >=20 > I don't need anybody's code to function except the OS and on UNIX, libc (= I > usually use syscalls..) >=20 > > You are using your definition of freedom to overtake other's thought. >=20 > Let me see if I understand this. A guy from China is lecturing on the top= ic > 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... >=20 Funny... I know some Chinese personally and talked with them and there is = something interesting I learned - in Western World China is portrayed as co= untry where you don't have any freedoms, mainly because it is `socialistic`= [fyi Chinese government is technocratic] and people virtually can't speak,= while in the West we can speak virtually anything... FYI: they can't speak but they can DO while we can speak but can't do that = much. > > I think RMS's GPL is more realistic to respect the author's will. He i= s > > not forcing you to use GPL for your code, he is not forcing you to use = GPL > > code neither. >=20 > You keep missing the point. The point is the GPL is not a free software > license. It's a viral, forcible open source license. >=20 It does its jobs - it gives you all 4 freedoms of software freedom and effe= ctively prohibits freeloading. It is good tool for this job, especially if = you don't want to write code for freeloaders. > > That is your definition of "free software", it is perfectly acceptable = to =20 > > lots of people, including me to call GPL software as free software. >=20 > But you're damn liars, and usually socialists and atheists, so you have n= o > compunction about lying, propagandizing, expropriating private property, > bullying, and killing people who get in your way, since you have no moral > compass. >=20 > Have a nice day! Yeah, I'm atheist. But I'm not socialist - I'm a technocrat, and IMHO GPL d= oes its job very well - gives a lot of rights to people while effectively p= rohibiting freeloading. And I don't see how lack of faith in any God or god= s makes me immoral - just looking in the Bible we see `almighty, merciful a= nd good` God killing people because they don't pray to him, ordering conque= st of Canaan and other atrocities that shouldn't be done by any good or mor= al God. Similar things can be found in other religious texts. As I would ad= vice reading Confucius and Buddha's teachings [I don't see how Zen can be q= ualified as religion - for me it is philosophy of life]. Could you stop using argunentum ad hominem ? It doesn't give strength to yo= ur argument, to the contrary - it is serious logical fallacy. Have a nice day!