[ANNOUNCE] Umbra role-playing game 0.2 pre-alpha

[s713221 at student.gu.edu.au]

> BINGO! We have a winner! This thread should probably die. I just got done
> hashing out a long thread on the python lists about the evil's and
> hypocricy of the FSF socialsts saying their license is free. Which is a
> total load or SH*T. It's about as free as china.

As another poster said, with freedom comes responsibility. *grins* Since
"your side" seems so fond of talking about the "Real World" what would
happen to source that was released without the protection of one of the
various open source licenses? I agree that the original GPL is
definitely at the far end of the spectrum, and may not be appropriate
for all cases, but to say that the GPL licence is "evil" and
"hypocritical" seems very UN-Real.


> >   Like Karl Marx, it'd do him and his cult worshippers a world of good
> > to go out, get jobs, and work for a living for a while.  Might put some
> > of his deranged notions in proper perspective.  Go reread what he's
> > written without the rose-tinted glasses.
> 
> Actually they couldnt do that in their world. The GPL puts programmers out
> of a job. You cant make any money on GPL software. Hence the ammount of
> linux companies going T*TS up. You simply cannot sustain a viable income
> from giving away your R&D code. But that is exactly what stallman and the
> FSF want. To destroy IP, and kill the software industry. And looking at
> the ammoung of linux companies who have failed, the rest are not far
> behind. It clearly shows what the GPL is designed to do.

*hmmm* I'm coming from the viewpoint of a student who had to recently
pay >$100 dollars (Including student rebate) for a Microsoft program
that the University DEMANDED I use because Microsoft (With a quite
cunning piece of business acumen, I must admit.) spent years developing
a strangle-hold on institutions' imaginations. 
Now I don't have anything against big business, overall it's pretty good
(Thinking chocolate and bottled beer), but when a group of companies
starts to squeeze money out of those who can ill afford it, they really
should feel ashamed about squealing when somebody gets sick of it and
organizes a freer and cheaper alternative, now shouldn't they? Seems to
me that most software companies got TOO good at making money. The way I
see it, there should be a natural balance between the best interests of
business, and the best interests of the customer, which is what the Open
Source community seems to be drifting towards. 

*paraphrasing like crazy*
"In the beginning there was only One Software. But immediately this One
became Two, Commercial and Open Source, which soon became Four: GPL,
LGPL, Proprietary and ShareWare. These four elements formed and split
and reformed again. And out of this chaos formed a Stone Egg. Warmed by
GPL, cooled by Proprietary, nourished by LGPL and ShareWare, from this
egg hatched a stone Monkey, and it's nature was ... IRRREPRESSIBLE."

> >   What has he done for us (instead of to us) *lately*?  Nothing.  He's a
> > waste of meat.
> >   Compare, for instance, to Linus or Guido.  They write code.  Any fame
> > they get is justified, because they've written *GOOD* code.  Eric S.
> > Raymond is a borderline case; he does write code, sometimes very useful
> > code (and sometimes stuff like C-Intercal...).  But he's also a
> > shameless exhibitionist, and needs about a 99% fame reduction.
> 
> Linus hasnt written probably 10% of the Linux OS. Ill bet 90% of it work
> of others. So Linus hasnt dont a whole heck of a lot for anyone either.

How much of the python interpreter have you written? How often do you
use it? Would it exist if Guido hadn't had an idea to create a better,
more explicit language. If he and the other workhorses behind the
interpreter want to GPL it *shrugs*. It's not as if they're demanding
you GPL your scripts, now is it?

Using an analogy, my mother and father originally only contributed
twenty minutes of sweating and grunting to start me off, but it'd be
damned hard for me to be here without them.

> >   Until someone infects some non-GPL code with the GPL.  Then it's been
> > stolen.
> 
> Thats one of the main points of the GPL. Destroy IP, and ownership. Among
> other things.
> 
> > >long as you have not used FSF software and violated its license  -- in
> 
> Sure yet again this is not freedom. "Play by our rules or go reinvent the
> wheel and play in another sandbox." There is no freedom in the GPL. GET
> OVER IT.

"We wanna use your cool free GPL source in our commercial software, but
if you want it back, we wanna make you pay for it."

> What makes me laugh is guido and the rest of whatever committee there is
> for Python trying to negotiate to get the Python license GPL compatible.
> WHO THE HE** CARES IF IT IS GPL COMPATIBLE! I could care less about
> bending to the will of some socialist nut case group like the FSF. People
> act like it's a big friggin deal to be "GPL compatible". I hope it never
> happens with Python. I would tell RMS and the rest of the FSF crowd to get
> bent. We dont care about being inline with you're stupid corrupt agenda.

Well I kind of like the idea that, as Python has been community written,
nobody can take that code away from the community behind some closed
source license. Maybe a GPL isn't required, but I'd still like to see a
LGPL applied to python.

Anycase, my 50c worth. Hey, inflation, don'tchaknow. If it makes you
feel better, just think of it as each paragraph as an "upgrade".

Joal Heagney/AncientHart