Namaseit's Profile

  • Jun 28, 2005
  • 2
  • 0

Latest comments made by: Namaseit

  • Thats fine. I just didn't want people to start thinking the GNU GPL is inferior and makes all these walls instead of bridges. I just don't want to see stereotypes about the GPL furthered anymore so I try to correct people quickly and respectably that way people do you not get the wrong ideas. I have seen some absolutely insane things said about the GPL. From people in forums to Microsoft. Once you understand the GPL it really is sheer brilliance. Some people and companies try to say that the GPL is unenforceable but that is complete rubbish. Most cases involving the GPL never make it to court because the companies involved in violation of it always settle out of court. The GPL is a great thing. I also admit it is not for everything. Thats why there is also the LGPL. It has lesser restrictions so it would be more geared towards a software library like GTK. As well I'd like to defend some of the people that get a little out of hand when subject matters such as people or companies "dissing" the GPL and spreading lies about it. To some of us in the Free Software world the GNU GPL is like the United States Constitution. Most people would get pretty upset if someone burned the Constitution in front of them. Take it from me, for every person that is rude in the Linux Community. There is 50 more that are not. You just hear the jerks alot more loudly sometimes.
    Namaseit had this to say on Jun 27, 2005 Posts: 2
    The Penguins Are Angry
  • I just want to say that it is not against the GPL to sell software as the poster above me stated. It is against the GPL to not release the source of code that is GPL'ed. As well it's not a "freeware license". Freeware is bad. Its free sure but when that person stops the project theres no source so no one can continue the project or improve it. So why make it in the first place. As well the GPL promotes community. A stark contrast to the BSD license. Not that the BSD license is bad, it just has a different purpose. And no a software company cannot copyright code that is not theirs. If they add to it yes they can copyright their *addition* but not what other people wrote. The original coders still hold the copyright to their code, they just give it to you to make changes without requiring compensation. Also, you only have to distribute your changes to the people you distribute the product to. So technically a company could sell a Desktop OS based on a modified version of the Linux kernel. They could also charge for the cost of distribution of this source. They could charge $500,000 to send you the source on a CD. Crazy huh? It's been done. Also if a company makes changes to a GPL'ed project but is not distributing it and is keeping it "in house" then they do not have to release their changes. I suggest buying "Free Software, Free Society" from It explains why the GPL exists and the problems with patent law. Just to be clear, the GPL is not against copyright laws, it's against patent laws.
    Namaseit had this to say on Jun 26, 2005 Posts: 2
    The Penguins Are Angry