Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 35

Thread: Anti-FUD.org

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Beans
    0

    Re: Anti-FUD.org

    Quote Originally Posted by azz
    Administer-> Modules - > enable Comment module

    Administer -> Users -> Permissions ->Comment module -> tick access comments, but untick all the others for anonymous users.
    I'd love to, but not only are none of those sections where you say they'll be, there is also no "permissions" category for users or comments administration. In the comments part of the configuration, there is nothing about allowing anonymous users to view comments.

    Quote Originally Posted by azz
    If you only look at the code [note: to DEVELOP with it, but if you only look at it there is no difference], the bsd licence is more free since there are fewer clauses. If you look at it from the user's point of view, the bsd licence is less free because it has fewer clauses in it and offers less protection to the users's freedom.
    Right... thats what I said in my article. Whats the problem again?

    Quote Originally Posted by azz
    But this is not the place to discuss this - Start a new thread, or bring it to your website...
    Why is this not the place? It is a thread dedicated to my site... I'd say if you have a problem with my site, this is a pretty good thread to discuss it in.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Kingston, On
    Beans
    Hidden!

    Re: Anti-FUD.org

    Administer - users -configure - premissions. My mistake.
    If it still does not work, what version of Drupal are you running. For the current version, you do not need any special modules to allow anonymous users to view comments.


    "Why is this not the place? It is a thread dedicated to my site... I'd say if you have a problem with my site, this is a pretty good thread to discuss it in."

    Because most people here are not going to flip flop back and forth from your site to this thread just to get up to speed with this conversation. (You should just run a forum on your site. I hope your fix your Drupal problems soon...) If they did, there would have already been a half dozen responses already. I know this because this is the third time that a topic like this is being discussed this week.


    Anyway, it's here now...

    "Right... thats what I said in my article. Whats the problem again?"
    "If you want to use the code with no restrictions, the BSD license is more free. If you want to write code and always be able to view changes, the GPL is more free"

    Like your ammended article, this is accurate. However, it does not consider the user's rights. The GPL is all about protecting the user's rights to view, edit and redistribute the code. You only consider the author's rights in your article. This is probably why some may say you are biased.
    Last edited by az; January 23rd, 2005 at 03:19 AM. Reason: Made a correction...

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Beans
    239

    Re: Anti-FUD.org

    If you look hard enough almost everything you write could be inerpreted as biased. I read Preston's origional unedited article on the GPL vs. BSD and I thought it was pretty accurate. If I looked hard enough into it I'm sure I could fine atleast dozen things wrong with his article but it's impossible to write something completely unbiased because the "facts" are different depending on who you ask...

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Kingston, On
    Beans
    Hidden!

    Re: Anti-FUD.org

    "I read Preston's origional unedited article on the GPL vs. BSD and I thought it was pretty accurate"

    It said that the user of the software was in no way affected by the differences in the licences. This is completly wrong. He changed it to: This small difference in no way effects most of the end users of the original program, only people who object to using proprietary software or those who wish to develop on top of the code. This is more accurate.

    Actually, it shoudln't really be "original program", but "program", since the point of the GPL is to protect the user of the program and that means not letting someone close up the code while it is being developed.

    The whole take on the issue is misleading. There never was such a thing as a better licence. They serve different purposes. It is clear that anyone who choses to release their code under the GPL is interested in free software. Anyone who releases their code under a BSD licence is just interested in releasing the code, period. The former involves the end-user of the software, the latter ignores the end-user.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Beans
    0

    Re: Anti-FUD.org

    Quote Originally Posted by azz
    Actually, it shoudln't really be "original program", but "program", since the point of the GPL is to protect the user of the program and that means not letting someone close up the code while it is being developed.
    You are thinking only of yourself. The BSD licensed code can be changed and therefore only the original code stays the same. I am speaking of both licenses there, not just the GPL.


    Quote Originally Posted by azz
    The whole take on the issue is misleading. There never was such a thing as a better licence. They serve different purposes. It is clear that anyone who choses to release their code under the GPL is interested in free software.
    Am I the only one who is sitting here going "Did you actually read the article?" The whole basis of the article was the fact that neither license is more free and that they serve different purposes. How is that misleading to you, when you say in the next sentence that they, in fact, serve different purposes.

    Quote Originally Posted by azz
    Anyone who releases their code under a BSD licence is just interested in releasing the code, period. The former involves the end-user of the software, the latter ignores the end-user.
    You call me biased... but look at what you are saying. I am merely being fair to both sides. Both sides are calling me biased, but anyone who is neutral on the issue agrees with me.

    -Preston

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Kingston, On
    Beans
    Hidden!

    Re: Anti-FUD.org

    |You are thinking only of yourself. The BSD licensed code can be changed and therefore only the original code stays the same. I am speaking of both licenses there, not just the GPL."

    No, we are talking about "This small difference"

    "Am I the only one who is sitting here going "Did you actually read the article?" The whole basis of the article was the fact that neither license is more free and that they serve different purposes. How is that misleading to you, when you say in the next sentence that they, in fact, serve different purposes."

    Bsd=free licence, GPL = free software. Different purposes.

    "Anyone who releases their code under a BSD licence is just interested in releasing the code, period. The former involves the end-user of the software, the latter ignores the end-user.

    You call me biased... but look at what you are saying. I am merely being fair to both sides."

    What do you mean? I am not picking sides, those are the facts.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Beans
    Hidden!

    Re: Anti-FUD.org

    I definitely don't have a neutral view on the issue... I think they're both great licenses for their purposes. I DO like the freedom BSD gives the developer, however I'm not a big developer, so I prefer using the GPL. I don't think that ALL software should be free, I think it's up to the developer to decide... that said, on with my take on all this. And I'm not playing devil's advocate here

    Everyone is biased, but I think you've done a pretty good job of being unbiased. Since you've changed things up especially. I just don't think this is something that can be objectively viewed, period, so in essence anyone who reads this and has an opinion one way or the other is going to think that the article is biased. I think that the one unbiased idea in the article is that they're both good for different purposes. Some GPL zealots would say that BSD serves no purpose and vice-versa. In being fair you're being biased in a way, and being biased is being unfair, so there's no real way to come out ahead. I'm trying to regurgitate all my knowledge from my argument class

    If that was confusing I'll explain farther, but I just didn't want to write a novel here.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Beans
    0

    Re: Anti-FUD.org

    Quote Originally Posted by azz
    "You are thinking only of yourself. The BSD licensed code can be changed and therefore only the original code stays the same. I am speaking of both licenses there, not just the GPL."

    No, we are talking about "This small difference"
    To get a difference, you must have two points of comparison - in this case, the difference is between the two licenses. Both BSD and GPL. By your own words we are discussing the difference, and if we are talking about a difference it must include both articles. The GPL can't be different from itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by azz
    Bsd=free licence, GPL = free software. Different purposes.
    Once again I must ask, how is this different from what I say.


    Quote Originally Posted by azz
    "Anyone who releases their code under a BSD licence is just interested in releasing the code, period. The former involves the end-user of the software, the latter ignores the end-user."

    What do you mean? I am not picking sides, those are the facts.
    Those are not facts. Things you choose at random are not facts. The BSD license does not ignore the end user. The end user has a chance at getting a better product if another program uses the BSD code to make their product better. They may not be able to do that with the GPL due to license issues. Don't say the BSD license ignores the end user, because in many cases it has made things better for them by allowing the products they like to be improved via BSD code.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Kingston, On
    Beans
    Hidden!

    Re: Anti-FUD.org

    I am glad that you were able to the the anonymous comments on your website to work. For those who want to know what this is all about:

    http://www.anti-fud.org/node/view/7

    "You are thinking only of yourself. The BSD licensed code can be changed and therefore only the original code stays the same. I am speaking of both licenses there, not just the GPL."

    Yes, but you are only speaking of the original code. That is not what is relevant to the user of GPL software. You cannot only look at the original code when comparing these two. Of course, if you ignore the concept of the user having rights and if you do not see the difference between a user who will just run a program on her computer regardless of where it comes from, and a user who will pick and chose what software to run, you are being accurate.

    But there are many users who do not feel this way. To them, the software they run must be (GPL) free.

    Let's say that you are having a lot of success with your Drupal website. Drupal and all of it's add-on modules of which I am aware are released under the GPL. Let's say that there is a really high-powered forums modules that you just must have. Let's say that it is released under a bsd licence. You use it for six months and develop a loyal forum following.

    Drupal goes to version 5.0 and with that, a change in the internal structure. All modules have to be rewritten or extensively changed. Drupal is still GPL, but the author of the funky-forums module decides to start charging for it or adding restrictions to it's use.

    In your way of seeing things, it is simple. You pay for the software and thank the author.

    From the point of view of someone who has different beliefs than you, this would have never gotten this far. The use of non-free (non-GPL) software is not an option.

    The source code of the earlier version of this hypothetical module is pretty much useless to me since I cannot progam in php and the whole project has moved on. Had the author decided to make her code GPL, I would have considered using it.

    Your articles leaves this out. It is your personal opinion about such users (and belief that there are not many around) that makes you _seem_ biased.


    "You call me biased... but look at what you are saying. I am merely being fair to both sides. Both sides are calling me biased, but anyone who is neutral on the issue agrees with me."

    This comment bothered me. How can you determine who is neutral? If you are told that you are not seeing one point of view, how can you be sure that your neutral person can see all sides too?
    With respect, it is also close to whining.

    Anyway, Congratulations on your site. Are you planning on hosting some forums? (Really only a few clicks away, with drupal... The forums module is GPL and works great!)

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Beans
    0

    Re: Anti-FUD.org

    With all your complaints about how I don't take into consideration the people who have different beliefs than me, you certainly don't take into consideration the clause after the comma:

    "This small difference in no way effects most of the end users of the original program, only people who object to using proprietary software"

    Was that just lost on you? Did you choose to ignore it?

    By the way, you ask how I know I'm being reasonable and fair to both sides? I'll tell you how - they both are telling me to change most of my article because they think it is unfair to them, yet neither side can come up with any more logical arguments as to why I should change it and it would not become more biased towards them. When someone can come up with logical arguments for something, I change it. When they can't, I don't.

    -Preston

    By the way, though I've never tried the Drupal forums now you have interested me. I may just do that. I'll look into it today.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •