Linux foundation shilling for the use of permissive licenses

There's some absolutely abstract real kind of fucking cucking going on.

...and to replace it with copyleft.

No, copyleft is a tactic that subverts copyright using copyright law. It can't exist without copyright.

The language used reminds of another article that I was just reading about how "open source" is a giant meme designed to destroy free software:
archive.today/fQhqW
This article is actually quoted by Assange in his "When Google Met Wikileaks" book.

proper link:
archive.is/fQhqW

Imo Torvalds is struggling to have the project in the good direction.
When I see this shilling it's strange that the linux kernel hasn't changed license yet.
That means that the linux foundation is pozzed besides a few ones.
This is not new unfortunately their has been a sifting of mentality in the linux foundation
See when they silently dropped community representation
web.archive.org/web/20170307233559/http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/39546.html
Or the now unreachable page of their sponsors:
web.archive.org/web/20160316050949/http://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/members

Thanks for the link user it is interesting (haven't yet finished)
Please remember to provide also a wayback machine link for Tor users
archive.org/web/

web.archive.org/web/20140325101845/http://thebaffler.com/past/the_meme_hustler

Did you even read it? It doesn't read like it's trying to discredit copyleft at all. It's just saying that you can be sued if you use a GPL licensed software and don't follow the license.

Wrong. Open source was never designed to destroy free software. Open source was designed to promote the practical benefits of freedom in software without the morality of promoting freedom and social solidarity. The original champions of open source wanted it to be the "business friendly marketing arm of free software". That is hardly a meme to destroy free software.

That's true, but we need something to force free software. If not the law than at least worldwide terrorist cells that attack whoever doesn't let users modify and distribute modifications.

ehh fuck em

Maybe "destroy" is too strong, but it was designed to neutralize its radical potential and, like you implied, turn it into something that benefits businesses rather than users. If you've noticed free software is very user oriented.

updated chart

No, you just need computer systems simple enough that one man can program OS and tools. That will ensure there's enough free stuff for everyone.
Right now everything bout hardware and software is a total disaster.

What's the reason not to use AGPLv3 for every software project? It seems like the most comprehensive one.

It's on you to argue why someone should use a license and not on everyone else to prove you wrong. That said, while the GPL is hard to enforce (because you need to show that some released closed piece of software uses GPL'd code) the AGPL is completely unenforceable because you don't even see the compiled code that runs.

They can be very easy to enforce. If someone releases a proprietary fork of GCC they'd probably have a really hard time hiding that it's based on GCC. If someone uses a proprietary fork of Infinity Next(tm) with improved board logs or whatever it's easy to prove that the improved board logs are not produced by the released source code.

They're hard/impossible to enforce in specific subsets of cases, not in general.

...

It's naive to assume that changes in server software correspond to changes in presentation. You can easily optimize some of the (numerous) slow routines in INFINITY NEXT™ and your users would be none the wiser. For all they know, you just use better hardware. This holds even more for the kind of change you would want to hide, like storing IPs in plaintext rather than hashed. The AGPL fails exactly in the subset of interesting cases.

Agreed.
We don't need another open sauce crap.
All we need is anonymity and who cares about IP logs? If the server can handle DDoS attacks or many users and allow access and usage with VPN/typical proxy/deepweb helpers/or even bare IP then that is more than enough (like torrents)

More like it was made to slide the parts that made execs and lawyers uncomfortable under the rug.

Open source is mainly concerned with making useful, practical software. Its proponents only are that their software sees use and want to make it better, and claim that the open source development model has an edge over plain old proprietary software.
They, however, couldn't care less if someone makes something that fucks users over, like a fork with DRM tacked on, or if someone ships the software in device that only allows signed binaries to run. This is where free software and open source software are at odds with each other.
The point is, such anti-features only serve to inconvenience the user and make the software less useful, ergo they're pointless. The GPLv3 exists to keep said anti-features away. Therefore, it's preferable to most free licenses.

Is there a license that has the following
If you can't do that last one through a license can you at least do:

I just don't want wincucks to ever potentially have access to my program (I'd imagine there are very few who would be willing to compile anything on Windows)

Good to know I'm not the only one who thinks like this. Simplicity and compactness is freedom. If everyone has to patrol 10,000 square miles of mountain terrain to ensure their borders are secure, they will fail. If it's one of flat ground, they will probably succeed.

That creates some very awkward incompatibilities with other licenses. Remember the problem with that popular JSON library or whatever it was that had "don't use for evil" in its license? People don't want to deal with legal messes, especially when they are looking for a permissive license.

Don't worry, there are more of us. However, our stance is fundamentally incompatible with mass adoption and so far it seems like niche computing can't get any money. Which sucks because current hardware is so convoluted that you'd probably have to start there.

Fuck off gook outsourcing dicksuckers.

Take your meds.

Do you honestly want to use a small system that requires IT administrator level expertise to use as a general system? What you're asking means your system is less configurable and less automated. The reason why modern systems weigh so much is because they're expected to do more than just a straightforward set of systems, they're expected to achieve a certain amount of automation, they need a certain level of integration with one another. By limiting the system so it's feasible for a single person to read all of the source code, you are designing a special purpose system that's locked into your specific use cases. If this is what you really want, good luck in writing it. It shouldn't be too hard to achieve given all the free software that can be stripped and repurposed for your use.

This doesn't follow at all and in practice I have seen the exact opposite. A system that is well-designed enough to be small and simple* usually consists of small reusable parts, which makes configuration and automation easier, while in a complicated . Most bloat comes from bad design rather than good features that demand it. I explicitly say good features because features that seem useful in isolation can be useless or harmful in context: Consider cat -n vs pr -tn for a very basic example.

Smaller doesn't mean restricted just like bigger doesn't mean better. But even if it took high expertise to use such a system, what would be wrong with that? Expert tools exist in many fields, why not in IT? Why should my workstation be based on the same principle that governs grandma's Facebook machine?

* This needs hard work. Every idiot can make a system he doesn't understand.

Oh yeah.
I've noticed it usually has UI that looks like not even a single designer participated in creating it, and often the only way to install it is to build from source because official builds are unsigned and not available for download over secured connection, sometimes also outdated

for example, let's look at Audacity
it has binary builds, but they are unsigned and hosted on a naked http page.
and if you try to build it from sources on macOS, you'll spend up to 5 hours and give up, because apparently they depend on some ancient and deprecated stuff to build, which is near impossible to get on actual version of macOS even if you follow the fucking manual with 1:1 accuracy.

I'm not saying I don't love free software, and I appreciate the 4 freedoms which I get, but there are times when it's not user oriented at all.

it's a very popular software btw

Whoops.

, while in a complicated system, things often clash with each other, requiring you to fix up things by hand.

what are you talking about? free software is developer oriented, developers implement only shit they want, not what users want. that's why almost none of free software has gui or mouse support.
if free software was designed for users, it would soon eliminate commercial software
but seems dumb open source autists don't want to defeat commercial software

I do not know a single usable open source software.

this. free software is OPPOSITE of being user oriented. I hate free software and free software developers

The pleasantness of the UI/UX for a given software application has nothing to do with whether said software is libre or proprietary, and you are either stupid or being deliberately facetious to use it as an argument.

Most proprietary software you use is commercially licensed software, so there is a big financial incentive to spend time working on non-functional features to dazzle superficial retards with pretty looking buttons and smooth transitions. Most free software is made by and for enthusiasts, so there is generally a much heavier emphasis on substance over style.

The license, which is what this thread is about. Free software is all about users being protected against lock-downs and having control over what they run. "Open source" removes this protection so that users can get fucked over for profit.
All UX is shit everywhere, but overall I find that on GNU/Linux it's still better than elsewhere because the devs are actual users and not just marketers. We have enough of dumb UX threads already.

systemd!
pulse thing!
NetworkManager!
GNOME3!!!

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux,
is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux.
Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component
of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell
utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.

Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day,
without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU
which is widely used today is often called "Linux", and many of its users are
not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.

There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a
part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system
that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run.
The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself;
it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is
normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system
is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called "Linux"
distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.

You can't get sued for using GPL software if you obey the fucking license and provide source code. It is beyond not difficult to do.

HURD fucking when?

lol mach kernel

draketo.de/english/free-software/howto-hurd-140-chars

(checked)
This
Just respect the four freedoms that isn't hard.

I regularly see developers getting headaches over the GPL, this is probably the most famous case.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BusyBox#GPL_lawsuits

Just recently though on Holla Forums I saw someone bugging Cisco during a holiday. Someone had to get yelled at by the legal team for having a Christmas vacation and not responding to source requests immediately.

The entire reason I picked MIT/BSD/ISC myself is because I could read and understand them and so can users/other developers, the GPL is incomprehensibly complex in comparison, as well as being more restrictive. I feel like both of these combined lead to nothing but unnecessary confusion for developers who just want to write software that is used for its technical merit instead of for political reasons. Calling such a thing simple seems absurd to me, I feel like you're conflating the actual GPL with the summations people present which are often inaccurate because they are over-simplified and omit important details.

The GPL is simple because the purpose and intent of the GPL is written clearly in the preamble. If you understand the meaning of the preamble, it is easy to understand the meaning of everything else. The legalese exists for people who need highly specific instruction of the meaning of the preamble.

if you're talking about bixnood, that wasn't even a month ago, retard. in fucking february. it wasn't christmas.
give the source code to anyone has a copy of the binary, and requests the source. it's that fucking simple. it's only overly verbose, because that's how contracts work. you make sure there are no loopholes.

Definitely bait

More like he's too lazy to conduct a search and CTRL-F a FAQ.
It doesn't necessarily work like that. Your options are:
in the case of 2, if you redistribute a program non-commercially, you can pass the offer along.

those faggots got pozzed years ago

Free software is more restrictive, War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength

(You)
Hello shill. Mind making sense on your next post?

Is coming up with something original that hard?

What are you upset about?

...

Can you imagine trying to use git with some kind of gui?

⁽ʸᵒᵘ⁾
⁽ʸᵒᵘ⁾

...

It's not news to anybody that Linus is an autistic corporate cuck who can't see beyond technical aspects of software. Just watch any interview with him.

No wonder Torvalds doesn't get what the GPL is about.
Funny he his to focus on the technical aspects while criticizing what permits him to have the flexibility on the technical aspects.

brian cuckduke should kill himself

The case of busybox is very simple.
If you add GPL software in a non free/libre one then the non-free/libre source code has to be released under a compatible license with the GPL or the existing GPL code has to be removed and the company has to find a replacement.

Why ?
Because again people seem to not understand the four freedoms.
If you add GPL software in a non-free one do you have control over the whole system ?
No, then you are taking away the possibilities for developers or any tech guy to make it's own shit.

Let me get this straight.
So you have chosen a license so permissive that it inherits shit tons of the defunct copyright system ?
And you don't find the actual copyright system difficult to understand ?
That's the thing with the MIT/BSD or other similar permissive it's that since they are so short they are inheriting a lot of rules of the actual copyright system.

The GPL is long because it has to counter the shit in the said copyright system.

What you seem to not understand is that your software under MIT/BSD/ISC can be use in let's say cars and the company doesn't have to share the source of the car if the customer ask for it (The CIA is happy with these licenses)

No the GPLv3 is pretty dam simple:
-Share the source code
-You cannot restrict anyone in anyway
Is that fucking hard ?

One license that I have to say that is pretty hard is the AGPL but it's used only on very specific projects.

wew
What would be hypocrite tho is that if RMS made non-free software, witch isn't the case.

...

wtf, I hate linux now

not news

stallman worship is dumb

brian cuckduke should kill himself and every person who thinks his dumb bazinga shtick is anything other than utterly repugnant probably should too

This guys is really spewing misinformation.

wow fake news
stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05 June 2006 (Dutch paedophiles form political party)
RMS says that he's skeptical, not that he advocates it.
And besides Pedophilia has it's commonly understood is completely out of bound of the real definition of it.
Pedophilia is being attracted to prepubescent children.
But in certain countries like the US you can be considered a pedo for fucking 17 year old.
Again know the context, know the definition of Pedophilia and know in what country it the context took place.
In the said context RMS was talking about the Netherlands which the legal age between adult and minor is 12/16.

This

age of consent is 14 in some countries in Europe and lowers in others but in USA you are pedophile, so how can it be disgusting? does this guy hate other cultures? is he racist or something?

No he's just unhappy with what someone else said so he must distort the truth to be right and virtue signal.

...

How does talking about the topic pedophilia make him magically a pedophile?

B A Z I N G A

Who said it did?