GPL is Broken

Invent your own language. Import GPL code into it. Publish resulting source code, but avoid publishing the compiler or language specification.

Now technically code is open source, but nobody, beside you, can ready it or compile it.

I think GPL is an instance of halting problem and Stallman is a retard.

I'm too lazy to reread the GPL, but I'm pretty sure it covers this in the same way as publishing the assembly-language ``source code'' that results from compiling a GPLed program.

>>2
You'll be surprised, but it doesn't, because:
1. readability is subjective.
2. I don't have to provide a C compiler for C code, so why should I provide Symta compiler for Symta code?

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html#section3

The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.

Here's the relevant section, if we're all going to play language lawyer actual lawyer.

It's acceptable to use portable GPL C code in a program that depends on proprietary Win32 API calls.

It's acceptable to work on the project in FakeLang 0.9, but if you can write it somebody else can read it and translate it back to C.

first some /g/ro harasses cudder-sama away. Now nikita is talking about stallman. I can't handle this shit.

>>4

the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.

It is distributed, but you have to license it for say $10,000,000. It says nothing about it being free.

It's acceptable to work on the project in FakeLang 0.9, but if you can write it somebody else can read it and translate it back to C.

He can't read/translate it, unless there is a documentation on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Library_of_Babel

And even if he can, that would be an investment so huge, that it is easier to rewrite it from scratch.

Why don't try this license:
Universal Free Information License v1.01
{license metadata
Author:Anonymous Author
Distributed by:Pastebin.com
Date:2013 July 6
Other contributors:N/A
Information wants to be free
}
Definitions:
"author" creator of licensed information
"copyright holder" entity which holds the copyright on information
"this license" this document
"product" a material or non-material object(including information)
"information" a non-material work of an individual
"components" the parts of information which can be reused independently
"user" the entity which gains/uses information from a distributor
"distributor" the entity which controls the distribution of information
"information carrier" a physical object or phenomenon which carries information(such as optical disc,internet site or radio wave)
"distribution medium" the system by which information is transferred from distributor to user(such as computer network)
"derivative work" other works which use the information or its components
"source form" a blueprint from which information is created(such as source code)
"technical restriction" a system inside information which restricts user rights
"legal restriction" an agreement/license/contract/legal code which restricts user rights
"proprietary" produced exclusively by a distributor or its parent/subsidiary/affiliate
"parent" entities which have control over the distributor
"subsidiary" entities which distributor has control over
"affiliates" entities which distribute information/products/services under agreement from distributor, but without control from it.
"proprietary helper product" proprietary product/information which is required for complete function/use/reproduction/modification of the information(such as dongle,proprietary compiler or decoder)
"proprietary helper information" proprietary information which is useful for understanding of the information(such as user manual)

This information is provided free of charge under the:
Conditions of license.
1. This license cannot be terminated unless a. this license term expires b.the user destroys all copies of information c. this license doesn't apply due current/local law. d.the information is not legal under local law.
1.2 Violation of this license doesn't terminate it or reduce any of its components legal strength, but allows the author or his designated copyright holder to pursue legal action against the violator.
2.information must be provided in such manner that:
2.1.distributor or its parent/subsidiary/affiliate do not gain benefits or compensation from it.
2.2.user doesn't have to compensate the distributor or its parent/subsidiary/affiliate during/before/after the transaction.
2.3.information is not bundled with something which is not licensed under this license or provided as compensation/bonus/reward for other products or services which user gains from distributor or its parent/subsidiary/affiliate.
3.License is licensed under Universal Free Information License(this license) .
3.1.License cannot be modified after the information is licensed.
4.Derivative works(works which rely on components of information) have to be licensed under this license.
5.Information and its information carrier cannot be technically or legally restricted: user must be free(with this license restrictions) to a.copy b.distribute c.modify d.adapt e.recreate from source form(if available) the information.
6.If information has a source form it must be provided with the information and licensed under this license. Source form has to be complete,commented and unobfuscated.If information has a proprietary helper information it must be provided and licensed under this license.
7.If information requires a proprietary product or some secret information to be useful for the user, they must be provided free of charge and licensed under the terms of this license.
8.If there is a proprietary helper product which user can use with information,it must be a.provided with the information b.its functions,source form,secrets or methods must be provided and licensed under this license as free information.
9.Copyright of information cannot be transferred from the author without his approval and transfer does not apply until the author cannot exercise legal rights(due illness/death or inability to represent himself at the time/place). Author or copyright holder cannot sub-license/re-license the information under any other license.
10.Information has to indicate copyright holder(s),distributor(s),author(s) and original author(s) in an obvious way with the dates of contribution/modification and if available, relevant metadata which explains or clarifies the content of information.
11.The author/distributor/copyright holder do not bear any form of liability from
user interaction with the licensed information.The information is provided as is without any form of warranty/responsibility/promise/expectation being valid.
12.The information and information carrier cannot contain advertisements,product placements/promotion or commercial content.

>>5
Stallman is the god of /g/, not /prog/.
All RMS Marx Stalin worship should be considered /g/ro activity.

>>6

It says nothing about it being free.

Yes it does.
Stallman often goes on about how all GPL'd software is free and how it will always be free because it is protected by the GPL.
Are you calling him a liar?
Are you suggesting he deliberately uses ambiguous terminology to mislead people and make them join his cult of personality?

GPL doesn't make your software "free as zero-cost".
Its explicitly mentioned..
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling-exceptions.html

>>10
Explicitly mentioned in a dark corner of his blog?
Who's going to read that shit?

>>10
There's a word for free as in freedom that's unambigious.
It's libre.
You wouldn't say an inanimate object was free unless you were trying to trick someone.

>>10

With free software, users don't have to pay the distribution fee in order to use the software

How is this different from donations then?

If RMS had only made the GPL a "right to reverse-engineer" license, things could've been very different now. By necessity, knowledge of RE will become more pervasive and tools developed at a faster rate. For the sake of example, I'll call this the "RPL" license. Those who RPL-license but don't release source will just have others produce and release the source for them anyway. People might be RE'ing commercial binaries more often, to see if they contain any code similar to RPL'd ones - and the best part of this is that while differences in source code can be large, compilers tend to make very differently styled source code produce almost identical binary output. Making it much harder to tell apart proprietary and RPL'd binaries means that instead of GPL being "viral" at the source code level, RPL is "viral" at the binary level.

Look at all the big open-source projects out there which are slowly taking freedom away from users like Android, Chromium, Firefox, and even some Linux distros. Open-source does not mean freedom. Then look at all the closed-source but public-domain software, of which there is too many to name. Closed source does not mean a lack of freedom.

Imagine if, when RMS was faced without the source code for that printer software, he RE'd it anyway to patch in the features he wanted, then founded GNU on that... but instead his narrow academic mind conditioned him to think that binaries were mysterious things output by a compiler and supposed completely impossible to modify. Opening the file in a disassembler or editor is far easier than begging for the source code and going through all the stupid legal bureaucracy. If he got into legal trouble for doing that, it would send an even better message - imagine seeing news of being arrested or sued for improving existing software! "It is better to ask for forgiveness than permission."

This is the only true freedom to study and modify software, and you already have it, even if not legally, just by owning a general-purpose computer. So it's somewhat ironic that RMS even mentioned it in https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html , but in his narrow-minded effort to concentrate on source code missed seeing this powerful concept completely.

Now we're seeing all these locked-down DRM'd platforms proliferate and all he and his GNUdiots can scream about is the goddamn source code?

"Source? We don't need no stinkin' source!"

>>14
how would "RPL" prevent locked-down DRM'd platforms?
all that would change is that instead of the source the companies would just hand you a hunk of obfuscated symbol stripped binary shit and tell you "good luck, champ"

If he got into legal trouble for doing that, it would send an even better message - imagine seeing news of being arrested or sued for improving existing software!

Unfortunately this is precisely the norm.

>>14
Excuse me, but who the fuck are you pretending to be?

>>15
It would mean a lot more investment into RE and RE tools, which naturally leads to more people knowing that DRM just doesn't work. What makes DRM work is the notion that binaries are some mysterious thing containing secret sauce.

>>17
FAIL.

http://rechan.eu.org/verify.txt

>>18
nigger

>>18
Fake.
Here's the real one:
http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=3dhrgNnQ

>>20

pastebin

Idiot.

>>21
Check em.

>>22
Checked. I am the real Cudder, btw.

那个 please

>>23
>>21

Psss-psss-psss. Psssssss-sss-ss. Psss-ssss.

There, that's all my urine for now. Be sure to back for more, dear trip-faggots.

>>21
Who the hell are you quoting, fool?

>>26
He's quoting >>20. Did your mom drop you on your head when you were young?

>>27
Xir is not a he, xir is a transexual.

>>25
You pissed on fake cudder. Apologize immediately.