BTW there was some drama in Hintjen's ZeroMQ project because one of the
main devs wanted to fork it to make a proprietary paid version, and
Hintjens refused. This is protecting your community who donate their
code in good faith. I want to make successful opensource projects, not
donate my labour for free to startups and bitcoin corporations. They can
use opensource or get lost. I won't stop them creating their own
projects, but I will pirate their software and never pay for it. Even
better is to have free and open alternatives.
On 01/01/14 18:22, Amir Taaki wrote:
> Are you guys robots? The GPL is awesome because it makes great
> opensource projects and hurts proprietary software. The only people who
> whine are usually using Mac OSX and doing some startup stuff. I could
> care less about huge platonic hypotheticals. It's like the hippies who
> say we need to get rid of money.
>
> http://hintjens.com/blog:68
>
> Mr. Pieter Hintjens is a genius and knows a shit ton about creating
> great opensource communities. He's an expert, and if you take time to
> read all his works, you'll realise the sense of what he's writing. Shit
> like Google closing Android simply wouldn't work with the GPL (and
> contributors own the copyright). That's how it should be.
>
> You can do amazing actions with the law. It's not the original designed
> intent, but we can hack this weapon of power and invert it. See what the
> CIC is doing by using the legal structure of a cooperative to create
> their own internal economy: http://cooperativa.cat/en/
>
> On 01/01/14 18:14, Daniel Larimer wrote:
>> There is a difference between real time self defense, and preemptive
>> violence in the name of self defense (justification for all wars or
>> imprisonment)
>>
>> Also contracts that attempt to compel a certain behavior may not be
>> valid as this is akin to selling yourself into slavery.
>>
>> http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/nineteen.asp
>>
>> THE RIGHT OF PROPERTY implies the right to make contracts about that
>> property: to give it away or to exchange titles of ownership for the
>> property of another person. Unfortunately, many libertarians, devoted to
>> the right to make contracts, hold the /contract itself/ to be an
>> absolute, and therefore maintain that /any/ voluntary contract whatever
>> must be legally enforceable in the free society. Their error is a
>> failure to realize that the right to contract is strictly derivable from
>> the right of private property, and therefore that the
>> only /enforceable/ contracts (i.e., those backed by the sanction of
>> legal coercion) should be those where the failure of one party to abide
>> by the contract implies the/theft/ of property from the other party. In
>> short, a contract should only be enforceable when the failure to fulfill
>> it is an implicit theft of property. But this can only be true if we
>> hold that validly enforceable contracts only exist where title to
>> property has already been /transferred/, and therefore where the failure
>> to abide by the contract means that the other party’s property is
>> retained by the delinquent party, without the consent of the former
>> (implicit theft). Hence, this proper libertarian theory of enforceable
>> contracts has been termed the “title-transfer” theory of contracts.1
>> <http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/nineteen.asp#_ftn1>
>> ……...
>>
>> Let us examine, on the other hand, the implications of the now
>> prevalent “promise” or “expectations” theory of contracts. Suppose that
>> A promises to marry B; B proceeds to make wedding plans, incurring costs
>> of preparing for the wedding. At the last minute, A changes his or her
>> mind, thereby violating this alleged “contract.” What should be the role
>> of a legal enforcing agency in the libertarian society? Logically, the
>> strict believer in the “promise” theory of contracts would have to
>> reason as follows: A voluntarily promised B that he or she would marry
>> the other, this set up the expectation of marriage in the other’s
>> mind; /therefore/ this contract must be enforced. A must be/forced/ to
>> marry B.
>>
>> ………
>>
>> Let us pursue more deeply our argument that mere promises or
>> expectations should not be enforceable. The basic reason is that the
>> only valid transfer of title of ownership in the free society is the
>> case where the property is, in fact and in the nature of
>> man, /alienable/ by man. All physical property owned by a person is
>> alienable, i.e., in natural fact it can be given or transferred to the
>> ownership and control of another party. I can give away or sell to
>> another person my shoes, my house, my car, my money, etc. But there are
>> certain vital things which, in natural fact and in the nature of man,
>> are inalienable, i.e., they /cannot/ in fact be alienated, even
>> voluntarily. Specifically, a person cannot alienate his /will/, more
>> particularly his control over his own mind and body. Each man has
>> control over his own mind and body. Each man has control over his own
>> will and person, and he is, if you wish, “stuck” with that inherent and
>> inalienable ownership. Since his will and control over his own person
>> are inalienable, then so also are his /rights/ to control that person
>> and will. That is the ground for the famous position of the Declaration
>> of Independence that man’s natural rights are inalienable; that is, they
>> cannot be surrendered, /even/ if the person wishes to do so.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jan 1, 2014, at 7:38 AM, Bedeho Mender <bedeho.mender@???
>> <mailto:bedeho.mender@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> -Clearly it would depend entirely on the context, but it seems that
>>> in a whole range of plausible circumstances that a contract exists.
>>>
>>> example: I stand on the street corner selling my own software in
>>> exchange for
>>> money, and part of the states sales agreement is that you cannot
>>> violate GPL
>>> terms of my software.
>>>
>>> In this scenario there is clearly a contract, and use of force seems
>>> no less
>>> legitimate than in other contract violation cases.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 31 December 2013 19:35, Mike Gogulski <mike@???
>>> <mailto:mike@gogulski.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/14/2013 11:49 AM, Bedeho Mender wrote:
>>> > To my knowledge, anarchism does not require abandoning use of
>>> violence
>>> > under all circumstances.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Surely not. Anarchism != pacifism, though some combine the two or
>>> choose
>>> to derive one from the other. I don't.
>>>
>>> > If one interprets the GPL violator as breaching contract with
>>> the creator
>>> > of the software, then use of violence to prohibit continued
>>> breach seems
>>> > like an act many anarchists would find acceptable.
>>>
>>> The "violator" has no contract with the creator under any reasonable
>>> interpretation.
>>>
>>> http://www.nostate.com/2323/intellectual-property-does-not-exist/
>>>
>>> and see particularly:
>>>
>>> http://www.nostate.com/514/and-you-agree/
>>>
>>> Peace,
>>> Mike
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net <http://unsystem.net/>
>>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
>>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>
::
Re: [unSYSTEM] GPL vs. libre softwa…
