MUH FREEEEEEDDOOOOOMM LOL

hippity hoppity
>

t. not a hacker

>t. no ears

>sell you software
But you know they don't sell you software, but only a license for using it? You own nothing.

bingo bango

the sour grapes fox except the grapes in the tree is freedom and the fox is is chained to the tree and is saying "freedom probably isnt that cool anyway"

>t. no ears
>t. zim

>you can't convert money and value into information and vice versa.
Lmao. I'm a fan of the movement, specially when it comes to education, but why are you faggots so fucking dumb?
Use other taking points when making arguments for openness, like "eventually everything will be known". Not this "can't put a price on something unless it's palpable" bullshit.

loonix

Skype is not free as in freedom
Not foss

Toe jam.

>doesn't know the difference between free and FOSS

free as in free beer, not freedom.

Why should a faggot lawyer have any say on what I do with my property? Why can someone still own rights to a movie after they sold it to someone else? Sure, sell as many movies and books as you like, but don't complain when I let someone else borrow it for his enjoyment.

RMS is less of a loon than say, Mark Zuckerberg.

still people should not be forced to give away source code. you should be free to crack and copy paste and distribuite the binary but no one should be forced to give its own work away so no force to give away source code.

also free to create your own source that violates the "copyright" of others. because when you make your source by yourself you did not stole someone source

No one is forcing anyone to give away source code. I just won't use a software that doesn't provide it.

gpl forces to give away code.

No it doesn't.

This.

Correct. If they want to distribute a binary that's perfectly fine. But like you say, cracking and redistributing it is fine, and I would add reverse engineering to that list (among other things)

yes it does. if you distribuite the software you are required to give acess to the source and the source need to be gpl. since gpl will allow anyone to copy the source it is forcing you to give away the source. read the license before talking about it.
in a ideal world you would not need to give away your work. you would not be allowed to sue someone who cracked you binary and reverse engineered it. or copy pastes it and gives to someone else. but should not be forced to give away the code

information can be duplicated without effort. attributing any nonzero price to the sale to a copy of information devalues the physical assets that back the world's currencies

Except that doesn't force you to give away the source. You even explained this in your post here:
>if you distribuite the software you are required to give acess to the source and the source need to be gpl
>if you distribuite the software you are required to give acess to the source
>if you distribuite the software
So if you don't want to give the source then don't distribute GPL software.

Except that does force you to give away the source. You even explained this in your post here:
>if you distribuite the software you are required to give acess to the source and the source need to be gpl
>if you distribuite the software you are required to give acess to the source
>you are required to give acess to the source
fixed for you

This. This is why companies that sell software have a dozen sales people, a director of sales, a legal team, and 2 developers.

IF you distribute. Don't want to share the source? Don't distribute the software.

Shortly in jail for rape and paedophilia.