Lol I already stated how you absolutely can write MIT code in a GPL project (this also makes your point about legal precedent moot, since the license of the GPL code technically does not dictate the license of other code, just the software using the GPL code). Did you miss that or choose to ignore it? I also never said there’s anything wrong with permissively-licensed code.
The rest is clearly ad hominem. If I were a fan of authoritarianism, I’d write proprietary software.
I’m obviously going to be downvoted for this, but the second you ask me to use the terminal is the second the OS is not ready.
Well then I suppose Windows is not ready if every update you need to run a PowerShell script to debloat and disable telemetry.
I spent a few hours in terminal trying to install something after trying everything in flatpak.
And you didn’t consider to use the graphical package manager which can do the same thing?
Windows 11 split screens out of the box. It can even tile. You can even use hotkeys to snap left and right.
So can I, on KDE Plasma. Admittedly, I don’t know what the situation on Cinnamon is.
In order for normies like me to switch, you have to make the OS at as easy to use as Windows.
For non power user use-cases it is absolutely possible to use as easily as Windows.
Respectfully, please dont spread misinformation about what Linux is and is not capable of.
You’re being extremely disingenuous, and you know it.
It is mutually exclusive. You cannot “protect freedom” and impose restrictions on freedom.
It protects ALL freedom EXCEPT the freedom to take away freedom from the original code. If you are desperate to allow this, write your code from scratch instead of using GPLed code, nobody is stopping you.
Also, no, you just explained how the licences worked and didn’t provide a single argument as to why having the freedom to licence your work however you want is a bad thing.
The GPL absolutely does not prevent you from licensing your work however you like. You can write BSD code and put it in a GPL program no problem. The only condition is that if you use GPL code you must not take the freedom away from it. If you don’t like that, replace the GPL code and suddenly the project is completely BSD or whatever have you.
And I did give you an example of why pushover licenses aren’t great. Because it would prevent custom ROMs on android from being possible.
The GPL doesn’t ensure that the software stays free, it ensures that it keeps control of the software and all future additions to it even if they’re completely unrelated.
This is a ridiculous assertion.
A) The GPL is a license. You say “it keeps control” as if it’s some person or organisation controlling the code. It isn’t. I could say the same about the BSD license, it “keeps control” by forcing the user of the code to leave all copyright notices intact, even if it’s combined into code of a different license. How horrible. Why can’t the code be under my terms where I get to get rid of attribution?
B) If you make an addition to GPLed code, it absolutely is “related”.
C) As I said earlier, the GPL does not stop you licensing your code however you like. See above.
Also, copyleft is just newspeak for copyright.
No, it’s a play on words because it uses the copyright system for the opposite of which it was originally intended. It was intended to lock down “intellectual property” to it’s owner, but the GPL uses the functionality of copyright law to do the opposite and force that users of the code always maintain the freedom to modify, share, and redistribute copies.
Are you a proprietary software developer who relies on permissively-licensed code for your work, by any chance?
You’re assuming that the GPL protecting freedom and protecting itself are mutually exclusive. They aren’t. Again, the GPL is written to ensure the code remains free forever.
Also, I’ve already pointed out the flawed nature of licenses like MIT and BSD, and if the GPL could be relicensed to them, it would provide a very easy way for proprietary developers to strip the freedom from the GPLed code when passing a derivative on to their users.
It is unfortunate that it cannot be relicensed to other copyleft licenses, as that would not pose such a problem, but without an explicit list of licenses it can be relicensed to I’m not sure that’s even legally possible under copyright.
I fail to see how the share-alike nature of the GPL is “authoritarian” and “doesn’t respect your freedom”.
It is built to guarantee the freedom of the user. It’s imperfect, as it has to work within the constraints of the copyright system, but it’s a hell of a lot better than licenses like MIT for propagating freedom to end users.
Here’s a real world example:
If I want to root my android device with KernelSU or build a custom ROM, I need to recompile the heavily customised kernel built by the vendor for my specific device. Because Linux (the kernel of android) is under the GPL, the manufacturer is compelled to give the user the same freedoms that were given to them, which means I can download the source code and do this.
If Android were based on, say, the FreeBSD kernel instead, this would be impossible. There would be very few, if any, android custom ROMs, because the vendor could, and would, withhold the modifications they made to the kernel.
The only “freedom” the GPL infringes on is the ability to take the freedom the code originally had away from an end-user.
Well, FSF would have trademarked “Open Source” if they could.
I don’t think they would have?
A) The FSF doesn’t even like the term
B) They haven’t attempted to trademark “free software” or “software freedom” either.
It was a fucking toddler trapped in the car you moron.
It couldn’t be opened manually from the outside.
I’m sorry but when the Quran makes it out that the sun and moon both orbit Earth when that is very clearly false I can’t take it seriously.
Copying from a comment I made on Reddit:
The Quran is considered the unchanging word of Allah passed down to Muhammed by Gabriel. But then what does it mean when the Quran is demonstrably wrong? Well, it means Islam falls apart as the “word of Allah” is disproven.
For example, I’m going to note a verse from the Quran which reveals the Quran’s model of the solar system:
“It is not for the sun to overtake the moon, nor doth the night outstrip the day. They float each in an orbit.” (Quran 36:40)
I’ve picked this verse because typically when the Quran conflicts with well-known, proven, modern fact and science, the defense from Muslims is that it’s metaphorical in some way (how convenient). But here not even the metaphorical interpretation makes sense, so its a good verse to solidly disprove.
First, the literal interpretation:
The idea of “overtaking” and the sun and moon’s inability to do so requires the two objects (in this case, the sun and moon) to be moving along roughly the same path/direction (or in the case of celestial objects, the same orbit), else the sentence makes no sense. Following this, this means that according to the Quran, the sun and moon follow the same orbit, an orbit around Earth (i.e. an Earth-centred solar system). This isn’t true, and is easily proven nowadays.
The metaphorical interpretation:
If we take “overtaking” to mean appearing to cross over in the sky and not literal overtaking, well, that’s still wrong. Because exactly that happens during a solar eclipse. The moon appears to overtake the sun in the sky, crossing over it and eclipsing it in the process. So the metaphorical interpretation is also incorrect.
As we can see, no matter which way we decide to interpret this verse, literal or metaphorical, it’s wrong. The “word of Allah” is wrong, and Islam crumbles.
The difference is I disbelieve because I’ve read portions of the Quran and found logical faults/inconsistencies which can’t be made by an omnipotent being and you believe because… ??
The responsibility is on you to do your research before you argue about a topic.
to many believers that is the truth
No? Just because some people believe it doesn’t make it true. That’s like saying because many people believe you can see the great wall of China from space, that it’s true.
A millenium-old book which makes grand claims with no real evidence (and many things wrong!) to back them up so a pedo warlord could live a life of relative luxury with his several wives and conquer Arabia does not count as evidence by the way.
the butterfly effect for example why it is not possible
… The butterfly effect is well proven and very easy to see with simply a double pendulum.
Are you telling me what I can see right in front of me does not exist?
it is his choice, for how to exercise his love
Or to never exercise it at all clearly. Maybe it’s because he doesn’t exist?
Muslims believe that he is most loving so when we don’t see it in this world the assumption is that we will get it in the hereafter.
Very convenient way of explaining away the fact that good things and bad things happen randomly and/or as a direct result of human actions, not as a result of “Allah” choosing how to “exercise love”.
This world is not a place for justice and neither is it fair, for we get it in the hereafter.
How do you know that? There is zero real proof and any “proof” in Islam has been well and truly debunked. You can’t just take an old book at it’s word you know.
cannot say that this action is bad because you do not possess the ability
But Allah is infinite therefore he possesses this ability
What is “this ability” you’re talking about? And Allah doesn’t exist, sorry to break it to you.
That said, I feel for the families of the people who died.
Love the hand-waving here to justify that if your “Allah” exists (he doesn’t, there’s plenty of plot holes in the Quran), he’s clearly not so loving.
Most Wise, Most Loving, Most High (probably on weed)
You know what else will get into the cracks?
Rain. To wash it off.
They have. Compared to this, it got barely any news coverage.
That is why they do this. Their only goal is attention, and they do that quite well.
The way they seem to operate is quite smart, actually:
Their stunts get a lot of press and bring climate change to the forefront of people’s minds, frequently.
They’re not a political party, so pissing voters off isn’t a problem. They can afford to be unpopular to further the cause.
Those who already care about the climate won’t change that based on a small group they dislike.
Those who call them “terrorists” are people who call anything short of licking oil company boot “eco-terrorism”. They were never going to be convinced to care whatever the group does. Probably read the Daily Mail.
Those who are apathetic about the climate are still going to be apathetic, with a bit of rage towards this group as with the others, but again, ultimately that doesn’t matter as they still won’t change anything based on a single group.
A small handful of people will be inspired by them and their constant reminders of climate crisis, and be motivated to push for change.
The last bullet seems to be the target audience of the group. And they’re the ones who will actually do anything.
That word… I do not think it means what you think it means…
If a small group annoying you pushes you towards not caring about the climate, you never cared about the climate.
Supposedly. Supposedly they also weren’t going to ignore the standard and do their own thing but I guess this disproves that.
Speed, privacy, old hardware support, benefits from community modifications (gaming performance kernels etc).
Yes
I still dont understand what you were trying to achieve that you couldn’t have done, at worst, in Synaptic package manager (a GUI program).
I don’t mean to say you’re doing it intentionally, just that when you state Linux can’t do these things it’s not exactly correct.