PDA

View Full Version : Anti-FUD.org



BWF89
January 18th, 2005, 10:22 PM
Theres a guy on the Linuxtimes.net forums (Preston St. Pierre) who made this site called Anti-FUD, which aims to stop misinformation on the internet. For right now the only articles are going to be about software but he plans to cover a wide range of topics in the future like the war on drugs. He writes some really good articles so I'd put this one in your bookmarks...

http://www.anti-fud.org/

BWF89
January 19th, 2005, 09:40 PM
Bump...

Randabis
January 20th, 2005, 04:18 AM
Bump...
I checked it out, and bookmarked it. Hopefully we'll get some more articles soon. My only complaint is I think the guy comes off as a bit too biased, which kinda has a counter effect to what he's trying to prevent in the first place.

TravisNewman
January 20th, 2005, 04:23 AM
Frankly, everyone is biased, and everyone thinks the opposite opinion is FUD, generally speaking. It's an interesting site, and I think if more people start posting and providing quality references it COULD be a great reference.

Randabis
January 20th, 2005, 04:28 AM
Frankly, everyone is biased, and everyone thinks the opposite opinion is FUD, generally speaking. It's an interesting site, and I think if more people start posting and providing quality references it COULD be a great reference.

Yes, everyone is biased, that's a given. One can present their biases tactfully however and still present their opinion without flaming the opposition. I understand where the guy's coming from, and I feel the same way about all the crap Microsoft and their buddies spread about the free software movement, but I just think he could present himself in a more professional manner, that's all.

TravisNewman
January 20th, 2005, 04:35 AM
Totally agreed, 100%. You don't really successfully get your point across unless you're civil when presenting your point. I admit, I like being Devil's Advocate to get all the points of anything across, and that's what I was doing to an extent in my last post, but I do truly agree with you.

az
January 20th, 2005, 03:02 PM
It is a shame that all the comments and replied to his articles are hidden from users who are not logged in.

Here is the essence of his opinion. Log in and read the whole text:

"Besides, its not really a "right" of the user to be able to do what they want with the code. It is the right of the developer to choose what will be done with their code. I'm sorry, but I don't buy into the "all software must be free or it is unethical" bit"




"I admit, I like being Devil's Advocate to get all the points of anything across"

Heh. Heh. Now _that_ is a signature quote.

Preston St. Pierre
January 22nd, 2005, 10:50 AM
Hello everyone,

First off, if I appear biased I am dreadfully sorry. Yet the truth is, I very much believe that both licenses are equal and neither is more free. I am honestly in shock that so many people have said I am biased. You know what the best part is? I've been accused of being biased both for and against both of the licenses.

In any case, though I am actually not biased in this matter (though I admit in others I might be, and I do my best to stop bias from seeping into my articles), I would like to make sure everyone has their say in it. Therefore, if anyone here has anything they would like me to change, and has a reason to support my changing it, I will make the change. This is the same offer I gave the people at the BSD forums and the people who comment on my site (by the way, I am not sure how to make Drupal allow anonymous users to view the comments while still not letting them post comments - when I find out, rest assured non-registered users will be able to view them). I have already changed the article four or five times at the suggestion of others. If you have suggestions, don't hesitate to tell me.

Again, I'm truly sorry if I appear biased. I don't mean to, and I certainly do not support one license over the other. To each his own, I believe.

-Preston

eNiNjA
January 22nd, 2005, 11:10 AM
I got FREE BEER, when I installed Ubuntu on my neighbors pc.

az
January 22nd, 2005, 02:21 PM
"by the way, I am not sure how to make Drupal allow anonymous users to view the comments while still not letting them post comments - when I find out, rest assured non-registered users will be able to view them"

Administer-> Modules - > enable Comment module

Administer -> Users -> Permissions ->Comment module -> tick access comments, but untick all the others for anonymous users.

"I've been accused of being biased both for and against both of the licenses"
But it is not always a question of being for or against. The licences mean different things to different people. If you only look at the code, 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.

But this is not the place to discuss this - Start a new thread, or bring it to your website...

Preston St. Pierre
January 22nd, 2005, 08:11 PM
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.


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?


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.

az
January 23rd, 2005, 02:37 AM
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.

BWF89
January 23rd, 2005, 03:16 AM
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...

az
January 23rd, 2005, 03:45 AM
"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.

Preston St. Pierre
January 23rd, 2005, 03:55 AM
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.



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.


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

az
January 23rd, 2005, 04:26 AM
|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.

TravisNewman
January 23rd, 2005, 04:31 AM
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.

Preston St. Pierre
January 23rd, 2005, 09:53 AM
"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.


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

Once again I must ask, how is this different from what I say.



"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.

az
January 23rd, 2005, 01:34 PM
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!)

Preston St. Pierre
January 23rd, 2005, 10:52 PM
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.

az
January 24th, 2005, 03:02 AM
"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?"


I was the one who suggested you put it in.


"When someone can come up with logical arguments for something, I change it. When they can't, I don't."

I regret not having suggested you remove the word original (end users of the _program_, and not end users of the _original program_), that's all. That would make the statement all the more accurate.

Preston St. Pierre
January 24th, 2005, 03:24 AM
remove the word original (end users of the _program_, and not end users of the _original program_), that's all. That would make the statement all the more accurate.

The problem is that it can easily effect the end users of a fork of the program under the BSD license. If I removed the word original then it would say that the difference didn't effect the end users of, say, a proprietary product derived from the BSD licensed code. This is untrue, as the fork could effect them very much (whereas it doesn't with the GPL). I have the word original in there to point that out. Under the BSD license, even the original project can be changed to be more restrictive. Under the GPL, that can never happen.

It is actually because of an area in which the GPL may exceed the BSD license that I have the word original in there.

-Preston

az
January 24th, 2005, 04:53 PM
"If I removed the word original then it would say that the difference didn't effect the end users of, say, a proprietary product derived from the BSD licensed code. This is untrue, as the fork could effect them very much (whereas it doesn't with the GPL). I have the word original in there to point that out. Under the BSD license, even the original project can be changed to be more restrictive. Under the GPL, that can never happen"


Adding the word original or removing it is like flipping a coin, isn't it? As everybody has been saying, it should not be a question of one or the other (for or against).

It would seem that your article is in need of a sentence to describe the other side of the coin.

Preston St. Pierre
January 24th, 2005, 06:10 PM
No. Plain and simple, the word "Original" is meant to be there and it stays. The only POSSIBLE way its "biased" is in your head. Noone is going to look at it and go "since he only talks about the original program it must mean the difference isn't there in derivatives" after reading my article on how the BSD derivatives can become non-free. It is perfect like it is and I'm not changing it.

Noone has been able to bring up any good new points in a long time... I think its about time I lock the article. Goodbye everyone, and thanks for the suggestions.

-Preston

az
January 24th, 2005, 07:16 PM
You seem to be the only one who thinks it is perfect. So don't complain when people call you biased.

Preston St. Pierre
January 24th, 2005, 10:17 PM
When there are an approximate equal number of complaints from both sides and neither of them can find any basis in logic I'd say I've done my job. So no, its not "perfect" but it is as good as any mortal can hope to do without going into extreme detail and depth that was outside the scope of this document. Yes, I'll stand by that.

-Preston

az
January 24th, 2005, 10:38 PM
We are now talking about one sentence and so I do not think that is going into extreme detail.

We are also talking about the users' rights regarding the software. How can this be outside of the scope of the document?


You just cannot see that this issue is not only about the developper!

You touch on the developer's rights in relation to a BSD licence.
You touch on the developer's rights in relation to a GPL licence.
You originally said that the user is not affected in any way by these differences. You ammended that to include a statement about some users. You must therefore think that it is relevant (perfect) to touch on the users' rghts.

The problem is, you only touch on the user's rights regarding the original code. That is what the BSD licence aims to protect. The GPL protects the users of the modified code, too. You must include this, to be complete.

Preston St. Pierre
January 25th, 2005, 06:41 PM
And, of course, no users will realize this from the sentence:
"Any code released under the GPL restricts other users from distributing that code without giving it back to the community. "

I'd say that makes it pretty clear that you can't use GPL code without giving back to the community and protecting the user's rights. You are free to think what you like about it, but I'm certain that I already made the point you think I didn't.

az
January 26th, 2005, 03:41 PM
Despite you and I being on the edge-of-our-seats for this discussion, I am pretty sure most people are bored out of their minds with this thread.

Why don't you make a new thread with a link to your article and create a poll so that people can vote if they find it biased or unbiased.

This may also increase your site's hit count.

Preston St. Pierre
January 26th, 2005, 05:51 PM
To be frank with you, I really don't care about the small amount of hits this site's forum will bring to my site. I care even less about whether you, a group of people biased towards the GPL, think my site is fair or not. I care about logic. I don't care if everyone in the world thinks my site is biased - anyone who is biased will think my site is biased, and most people are biased. I have logic to prove where I stand, and that is all I need to be correct even if the world is against me. So, yes I agree this thread has gone on long enough. Stop replying and I'll do the same, it will go away. The person who posted the thread originally did so without my permission or request. I don't need to spam forums to get hits. I have good content, the hits bring themselves.

-Preston

markusf21
July 16th, 2007, 01:43 AM
This may be a dumb question but what does FUD mean?

KiwiNZ
July 16th, 2007, 01:46 AM
Fear
Uncertainty
Doubt

Old Pink
July 16th, 2007, 02:20 AM
Firefox can't find the server at www.anti-fud.org.Look forward to seeing it though. :(

markusf21
July 16th, 2007, 03:45 AM
Fear
Uncertainty
Doubt
Oh well thanks for the answer it makes sense but I was expecting something way different

kostkon
July 16th, 2007, 04:55 AM
Look forward to seeing it though. :(

This thread started 2.5 years ago so it looks like this site actually never came to fruition!