[fpc-other] SpVoice.GetVoices To GPL flame discussion ;-)

[n***@z505.com]

Hello.
http://espeak.sourceforge.net
The licence is GNU General Public License so you may use the
executable like you want.

The GPL is a restrictive license, so you may not use it like you
want..

Don't want to sound like a GPL zealot, b/c I'm not...
but this (and below) is mostly 'depends' : on how you want the
software model to work, how do you value feedback, and how do you
care of people taking advantage of your code in various ways,
without you knowing it.
There, that's about as neutral as I dare to name it ;)
(I also tend to trust GPL/LGPL/MPL released programs more than I'd do
with anything 'less restrictive' - from end user perspective)

I find a lot of GPL applications to be low quality, half assed works, as
no one is paid to work on these programs since GPL sets a price monopoly
of zero dollars on the product.

But there are some high quality GPL apps out there.

It's just that when people are paid to work on products, you get super
high quality software such as say, oh I don't know, Adobe graphics
editing tools such as photoshop, adobe pdf reader (acrobat). Compare
that to the absolute sh(t tools on unix that are GPL'd such as the old
ghostscript reader or clunky GIMP.

Now, paid software does end up producing Bloatware and featuritis
though, whereas BSD tools remain simple without as many knobs and
featuritis.

But a sh*t tool like midnight commander at the command prompt is just no
comparison to a paid product like Total Commander which is by far
superior in all ways to going back to the dark ages and using a text
mode norton commander gpl program... But then again, you have a GPL'd
Double Commander which is a very nice tool. See the problem with Double
Commander is it violates its own license. Double Commander allows you to
load pretty much any Total Commander plugin, and that itself is a
violation of the GPL because those plugins are not GPL, (many of them)
and therefore you are violating the GPL by loading non gpl compatible
plugin dll's... So if double commander was just a "Do anything the f*ck
you want with it" license, such as bsd/mit, then there would be no
violation, hence the superiority of a truly free license like mit/bsd.

All the little double commander users (myself included) are constantly
violating every single word and line in the GPL by loading non gpl
compatible total commander plugins, but no one cares, because GPL
violations happen every single day, thousands of them, and people
actually use GPL software more like bsd/mit software - just no one
actually reports these violations nor gives a flying sh*t or a flying
f*ck..

Yeah, in practice, everyone uses GPL code as if it was bsd/mit licensed.

Another example is THE INTERNET, where all gpl code on the internet is
hidden from site. Businesses use gpl code to run their website software
programs and never release any of the gpl code and keep it secret from
you on their servers, because apparently according to the Great Richard
Stallman, you can ship your web program to people without releasing the
source since it is just a pipe of text, but any time you pipe stuff over
X11 you have to release the sources. It's called hypocrisy...

Or, some call it "GNG is Not GNU"

No offenses intended to you personally, it's just that most people do
not actually understand the GPL and are using all this GPL'd code as if
it was bsd/mit licensed, when really it's not.

Double Commander is the perfect example of where GPL cripples the
application and people do not even realize it, because they just go
ahead and violate the GPL and don't care. Any time anyone loads a non
gpl compatible plugin into double commander, which they do daily.. they
are violating the gpl. If it was bsd/mit licensed, there would be no
worry, you'd just do whatever the f*ck you want and get on with life :-)

That's what I call freedom.

But as for the actual criminal gang stalkers who write GPL code such as
the openbsd developers.... Let's just say that people who write good
code, are not necessarily the best people to actually have personal
relationships with in real life. I don't know about freebsd developers
or dragonflybsd developers or mozilla/gpl developers. Basically all
humans deserve hell roast for being socially inept.
_______________________________________________
fpc-other maillist - fpc-***@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mai

[Lukasz Sokol]

Post by n***@z505.com

Hello.
http://espeak.sourceforge.net
The licence is GNU General Public License so you may use the
executable like you want.

The GPL is a restrictive license, so you may not use it like you
want..

Don't want to sound like a GPL zealot, b/c I'm not...
but this (and below) is mostly 'depends' : on how you want the
software model to work, how do you value feedback, and how do you
care of people taking advantage of your code in various ways,
without you knowing it.
There, that's about as neutral as I dare to name it ;)
(I also tend to trust GPL/LGPL/MPL released programs more than I'd
do with anything 'less restrictive' - from end user perspective)

I find a lot of GPL applications to be low quality, half assed works,
as no one is paid to work on these programs since GPL sets a price
monopoly of zero dollars on the product.
But there are some high quality GPL apps out there.
It's just that when people are paid to work on products, you get
super high quality software such as say, oh I don't know, Adobe
graphics editing tools such as photoshop, adobe pdf reader (acrobat).
Compare that to the absolute sh(t tools on unix that are GPL'd such
as the old ghostscript reader or clunky GIMP.
Now, paid software does end up producing Bloatware and featuritis
though, whereas BSD tools remain simple without as many knobs and
featuritis.
But a sh*t tool like midnight commander at the command prompt is just
no comparison to a paid product like Total Commander which is by far
superior in all ways to going back to the dark ages and using a text
mode norton commander gpl program... But then again, you have a GPL'd
Double Commander which is a very nice tool. See the problem with
Double Commander is it violates its own license. Double Commander
allows you to load pretty much any Total Commander plugin, and that
itself is a violation of the GPL because those plugins are not GPL,
(many of them) and therefore you are violating the GPL by loading non
gpl compatible plugin dll's... So if double commander was just a "Do
anything the f*ck you want with it" license, such as bsd/mit, then
there would be no violation, hence the superiority of a truly free
license like mit/bsd.
All the little double commander users (myself included) are
constantly violating every single word and line in the GPL by loading
non gpl compatible total commander plugins, but no one cares, because
GPL violations happen every single day, thousands of them, and people
actually use GPL software more like bsd/mit software - just no one
actually reports these violations nor gives a flying sh*t or a flying
f*ck..
Yeah, in practice, everyone uses GPL code as if it was bsd/mit
licensed.
Another example is THE INTERNET, where all gpl code on the internet
is hidden from site. Businesses use gpl code to run their website
software programs and never release any of the gpl code and keep it
secret from you on their servers, because apparently according to the
Great Richard Stallman, you can ship your web program to people
without releasing the source since it is just a pipe of text, but any
time you pipe stuff over X11 you have to release the sources. It's
called hypocrisy...
Or, some call it "GNG is Not GNU"
No offenses intended to you personally, it's just that most people do
not actually understand the GPL and are using all this GPL'd code as
if it was bsd/mit licensed, when really it's not.

I said, I am not a zealot ;)

I use GIMP and it works for me for what I need it to do.

I use MC and it works for me for what I need to do.

I use versions included in my daily driver OS (Debian (still) Wheezy with Backports...)
and they work for me for what I do ;)

The only non-canon program in my daily driver, is the Firefox ;) because Debian Policy is stupid here :J
other than that I use what's provided and it works for me.

:)

Post by n***@z505.com
Double Commander is the perfect example of where GPL cripples the
application and people do not even realize it, because they just go
ahead and violate the GPL and don't care. Any time anyone loads a non
gpl compatible plugin into double commander, which they do daily..
they are violating the gpl. If it was bsd/mit licensed, there would
be no worry, you'd just do whatever the f*ck you want and get on with
life :-)
That's what I call freedom.
But as for the actual criminal gang stalkers who write GPL code such
as the openbsd developers.... Let's just say that people who write
good code, are not necessarily the best people to actually have
personal relationships with in real life. I don't know about freebsd
developers or dragonflybsd developers or mozilla/gpl developers.
Basically all humans deserve hell roast for being socially inept.

lol :)

-L.

_______________________________________________
fpc-other maillist - fpc-***@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin

[Travis Siegel]

(comments in line)

Post by n***@z505.com

e GPL is a restrictive license, so you may not use it like you
want..

Not entirely true, gpl is restrictive, yes, but it doesn't restrict your
ability to use a gpl program, and that includes selling said program.
The gpl does not restrict anyone from charging for a program, they only
state that source code must be made available for no cost (or for no
more than the cost of the actual work it takes to make it available).
There's nowhere in the gpl that states you can't charge for a program.

Post by n***@z505.com
I find a lot of GPL applications to be low quality, half assed works,
as no one is paid to work on these programs since GPL sets a price
monopoly of zero dollars on the product.
But there are some high quality GPL apps out there.

Agreed, there are some very high quality gpl programs, (the entire linux
kernel is gpl after all).

Post by n***@z505.com
It's just that when people are paid to work on products, you get
super high quality software such as say, oh I don't know, Adobe
graphics editing tools such as photoshop, adobe pdf reader (acrobat).
Compare that to the absolute sh(t tools on unix that are GPL'd such
as the old ghostscript reader or clunky GIMP.

Sorry to say being paid to work on software doesn't make that software
better. I've seen some pretty crappy paid software in my time. I've
even paid for some of it, and wasn't the least bit pleased to find it
literal junk. Just because you pay for something doesn't mean it's
worth what you paid for it.

Post by n***@z505.com
But a sh*t tool like midnight commander at the command prompt is just
no comparison to a paid product like Total Commander which is by far
superior in all ways to going back to the dark ages and using a text
mode norton commander gpl program... But then again, you have a GPL'd
Double Commander which is a very nice tool. See the problem with
Double Commander is it violates its own license. Double Commander
allows you to load pretty much any Total Commander plugin, and that
itself is a violation of the GPL because those plugins are not GPL,
(many of them) and therefore you are violating the GPL by loading non
gpl compatible plugin dll's... So if double commander was just a "Do
anything the f*ck you want with it" license, such as bsd/mit, then
there would be no violation, hence the superiority of a truly free
license like mit/bsd.
All the little double commander users (myself included) are
constantly violating every single word and line in the GPL by loading
non gpl compatible total commander plugins, but no one cares, because
GPL violations happen every single day, thousands of them, and people
actually use GPL software more like bsd/mit software - just no one
actually reports these violations nor gives a flying sh*t or a flying
f*ck..

But, the gpl specifically allows for linking (and even distributing)
other code into a gpl program. Even if that code itself isn't gpl, the
license still allows you to link other parts into the application and
use it without violations. It does specifically talk about linking your
gpl code into non gpl programs, but it says nothing about linking non
gpl code into a gpl program, other than to say in general terms that
those additions may not be covered by the gpl.

I'm no gpl expert, but reading the gpl seems to indicate that these
things are all possibledo not violate the gpl. Since most license
agreements say you may use version (x) or any later version, and looking
at the gpl (version 3) seems to address all of these issues in generic
enough terms that I think you're getting all tied up in knots for no reason.
Admittedly, the gpl version 2 was a bit more restrictive, but I'm not
seeing any conflicts with version 3. It's possible I misread something,
since (like I said), I'm no expert, but in general, I see no conflicts here.

Post by n***@z505.com
Another example is THE INTERNET, where all gpl code on the internet
is hidden from site. Businesses use gpl code to run their website
software programs and never release any of the gpl code and keep it
secret from you on their servers, because apparently according to the
Great Richard Stallman, you can ship your web program to people
without releasing the source since it is just a pipe of text, but any
time you pipe stuff over X11 you have to release the sources. It's
called hypocrisy...

I haven't run across that particular piece of wisdom, I have no idea why
piping anything across x11 would change anything, but the reason most
folks don't release their programs is because most of those businesses
using gpl code to run their websites don't actually make any changes to
the web server, and therefore, aren't required to release anything. Of
those who do make changes, I've heard it stated that as long as the code
isn't meant for public consumption, it also doesn't need to be released
back. I'm not sure I agree with this particular line of defense, but
I've seen that particular argument more than once, and it appears to be
ok with the powers that be, so who am I to argue with it.

But, in summary, charging for gpl code is ok, linking code into gpl
programs appears to be ok, as long as the linked in code isn't part of
the original program, and isn't distributed with it.
Linking a gpl library into an existing non gpl program seems to be a
problem though, and those types of setups should use the lgpl to cover
the library/code in question.
all the salient points.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

_______________________________________________
fpc-other maillist - fpc-***@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin