Well it has been a long time coming but the freetards are finally starting to wake up to the fact that Google is not really part of their club. Or, rather, that Google belongs to their club when it suits them but not always. Check out this story on Wired.com where freetards complain because Google is releasing Android code under an Apache license instead of the beloved (and truly fucked up) GPL. I just talked to Eric about this and he says he wonders why it doesn't occur to the freetards that the problem isn't Google -- it's them. "If they weren't such assholes we might actually want to work with them," he says. "You think I want my $200 billion market cap resting in the hands of Richard M. Stallman? Um, let me get back to you on that."
As always the freetards are fantastic double-speakers. Check out the following beautiful quote from a freetard in the Wired story: "They owe us nothing," Mosher says of smartphone manufacturers using OpenMoko. "Our only request is this: They owe other people the same rights we gave them. We give you the code for free. If you change it or improve it, you must give your work back to the common good."
In other words, you owe us nothing. Except, um, you owe us all of your code. Hillary Clinton couldn't do better than that one. (Photo: Dian Phossey, Linux-Watch.)
Friday, November 16, 2007
Freetards turn on Google
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
FSJ,
Wow. Android + its lovers stuck togeter for almost two whole weeks. Now cracks in their half baked idea are appearing. Typical GOOG beta crap --- send it back to the labs.
I mean, some people waited that long to BUY and iPhone.... you know PAY MONEY for something tangible, instead of hugging a tree, err, open source wet dream.
Viva iPhone. Bring out your dev kit. Kick the freedtards and squirrel boys butts..
I think Linux truly is revolutionary... in the sense that it follows the same path as most revolutions.
Take the French Revolution. First, they overthrew the king, saying they were going to establish democracy, freedom, all that stuff. But before long, Robespierre and his Reign of Terror are in play, fanatically denouncing and executing anyone who wasn't totally supportive of "revolutionary ideals."
It's the same way with these nutjobs. As soon as you aren't an ardent supporter of the open-source revolution, you are an enemy that can be hunted down and destroyed by rhetoric or lawsuit... even if it doesn't make any sense.
I may not want Microsoft to control the world, but it's a hell of a more attractive option than it being run by the freetards.
is King Kong a freetard too? check the photo ...
linux is now official under contract of microsoft, poor bill had smashed his poor money out of the window.
In response to alexander....
Not ONLY does your comparison work with the linux revolution, it works even more so with the Google revolution.
"We are so completely different, breaking the mold, and we love free thinkers.
But, if you are going to think freely, it'd be good for us if you could think just like we do. And, um, never remind us we make all our money with ads, not by actually creating anything. 'Kay?"
So when you say,
"In other words, you owe us nothing. Except, um, you owe us all of your code. Hillary Clinton couldn't do better than that one."
The part that you forgetting is the implied, "In exchange for building the most difficult part of a computer system for you, you owe us nothing..." Doesn't seem like double talk to me. If you want to use their code free, give code back. If not, pay Microsoft's licensing fees. Or Apple's ... oh wait... it's not February yet.
The GPL is horribly restrictive to developers who actually need food to survive.
Then again, the developers who are also followers of Jasmuheen should all embrace the GPL and devote their life to it.
The freetards fail to understand that some of us have to actually make a living writing and selling code. And a software professional would like to pay the mortgage and feed the kids and Hillary's health care monster by actually writing software; not by having some lame IT job and coding as a hobby.
In fact, some of us software developers have as a goal writing software so intuitive and beautiful that IT departments become unnecessary.
And we need to get money because even if you set up a commune and everything is shared and free... you can't eatcode.
Ryan, for most freetards, the most difficult part is not the most difficult part of the code base. The most difficult part is getting enough quality freetards together to decipher and maximise what Google churns out.
Maybe you should try XCode etc. someday? Have you friggin heard of it? [Not implying that it is free, just saying the SDK does not suck as much b*lls like other SDK-esque-stuff...]
For the record I love ChickenOfTheVNC... Though Leopard's VNC-esque implementation destroys many, many other VNC stuff out there.
"In other words, you owe us nothing. Except, um, you owe us all of your code."
Wrong.
Try, "Use our software for any purpose you like. Study how our software works if you want to. Share our software with other people if you want to. Alter our software to suit your needs if you want to. If you want to distribute a derivative work you make using our software, you'll need to extend these same rights to those to whom you distribute that derivative work." This sounds very reasonable to me.
whoa, _alexander_zero, you sound like Isaiah Berlin. But you're right, which is why licenses like the Apache License, or APSL, or Sun's open source license, etc. exist. They let everyone work together on solving the problems that make no sense to solve individually, and let everyone compete using those solutions.
I don't see what the issue is here. Android is based on the Linux kernel, which is licensed under the GPL. As such, any modifications that Google makes to the kernel or any other GPL components it uses (such as the GNU utilities) must be distributed along with source code. However much of the code that makes up Android (the Dalvik bytecode compiler, the GUI components, etc.) are composed of entirely new code written by Google. Google is free to license this code however it chooses. The Apache license makes a lot of sense here as few handset manufacturers or wireless carriers would be willing to participate if they could not have control over the tweaks they make to the platform. Since this blog is written primarily for entertainment value, I won't comment on the specific text or the out of context quotes from Android's competitors, but it does seem like the open sourcers are getting their panties in a bunch -- again. Here's the deal: companies use open source not because they care about your ideals surrounding "freedom," but because it's an efficient way to do business. They'll choose the license that helps them get their job done the best, and if you don't like it, you don't have to use it. While I don't see myself trading in my iPhone for an Android phone anytime soon, I'm glad Google's putting millions into getting a real open device OS off the ground. It's much better than what's available now.
I don't see what the issue is here. Android is based on the Linux kernel, which is licensed under the GPL. As such, any modifications that Google makes to the kernel or any other GPL components it uses (such as the GNU utilities) must be distributed along with source code. However much of the code that makes up Android (the Dalvik bytecode compiler, the GUI components, etc.) are composed of entirely new code written by Google. Google is free to license this code however it chooses. The Apache license makes a lot of sense here as few handset manufacturers or wireless carriers would be willing to participate if they could not have control over the tweaks they make to the platform. Since this blog is written primarily for entertainment value, I won't comment on the specific text or the out of context quotes from Android's competitors, but it does seem like the open sourcers are getting their panties in a bunch -- again. Here's the deal: companies use open source not because they care about your ideals surrounding "freedom," but because it's an efficient way to do business. They'll choose the license that helps them get their job done the best, and if you don't like it, you don't have to use it. While I don't see myself trading in my iPhone for an Android phone anytime soon, I'm glad Google's putting millions into getting a real open device OS off the ground. It's much better than what's available now.
Even Linus Torvalds doesn't like the latest iteration of GPL. How would anyone in their right mind think Google, or any other rational person, would?
Post a Comment