Permissive licenses and classcucks

No, No, NO!!!!

Debian and Ubuntu do not have a policy of only including free software, and removing nonfree software if it is discovered. Most of them have no clear policy on what software they'll accept or reject at all. The distributions that do have a policy unfortunately aren't strict enough. The kernel that they distribute (in most cases, Linux) includes “blobs”: pieces of object code distributed without source, usually firmware to run some device.

See gnu.org/distros/common-distros.en.html for more information about the non-free GNU/Linux systems that we do not endorse.

See gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html for a list of free GNU/Linux distributions.

See libreboot.org/docs/hcl/index.html for a list of hardware compatible with libreboot, a free BIOS or UEFI replacement (free as in freedom). Almost all PC hardware contains non-free BIOS/UEFI firmware which often contains backdoors, can be slow and have severe bugs, where you are left helpless at the mercy of the developers; you have no freedom over your computing.

You may also opt to buy a Lemote YeeLoong if you can find one.

You don't get it, do you. Excuse me, but "mostly free" is misnomer. It is either free or it isn't. End of discussion.

The vast majority of Linux distros have some proprietary blobs in their drivers, and have the option to download nonfree stuff like Flash. However, don't listen to this guy because they still basically count as FOSS, and are a big improvement over just using Windows.

Also, are you building your PC for video games, or just normal computing?

Mostly general computing stuff, some statistics
I only ever play dota2 and that's compatible with most linux distros afaik

Basically BSD/MIT is for people who are okay with market socialism and social democracy

GPL is for those who want no markets

Fuck off I'm a market socialist and I hate permissive licenses. The two issues are totally unrelated.

There seems to be a misconception here that ancaps like intellectual property. They generally don't because it's an unjust monopoly on a non-scarce resource.

De Raadt is a clown, but I'll admit that OpenBSD itself is pretty nice, aside from the license.

FreeBSD is severely overrated though. At this point it's just shittier GNU/Linux.

GNU OS fucking when?

GuixSD soon, comrade

...

I personally consider Debian free because it comes only with, and let's you only install, free software. It even has a deblobbed kernel. You can install non free software by manually and explicitly adding the repos in the sources list but you can do the same with those free distros. The only difference is that Debian host the non free repo themselves.

Part 1/14

>freebsd.org/doc/en/articles/bsdl-gpl/article.html
>>

This document is a one-sided defence for pushover licenses, it does not weigh the benefits between puchover licenses and copyleft licenses.

And long before "Open Source" was used, "Free Software" was used.

Pushover licenses does not prevent you from doing this to a program, remember that the document was supposed to make the case for BSD-style licenses.
Again pushover licenses does not prevent this. The GPL however ensures that if you recieved the binaries, you are entiteled to the source code under the GPL.

This is about government intervention and how it is sometimes very bad. Not about the alleged supremacy of permissive licenses over GPL.

Part 2/14

Again, pushover licenses does not prevent this, the GPL does this by cleverly using the copyright system against itself. So far Montague has told the story about how free software ended in the 60s. And little else.

This is the tale of making sure the software you distribute, sell and develop for is legally in the clear, this is in some cases a argument for using pushover licenses, but the same license allows companies to make it proprietary.

While it's a good thing that you aren't sued for your hard, free labour, he didn't mention that BSD was under a 4-clause license prior to 22 July 1999. The third clase was:
3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed by the organization.
This clause made it incopatible with the GPL.

Part 3/14

There is free (as in freedom) commercial software and proprietary non-commercial software. It's possible to make money on software, but Montague says nothing about this.

Here Montague repeats the canary that the GPL is anti commercial; it is not, and the GPL does not restrict the future behaviour of your code. What it means for software to be under the GPL is that if you give someone the binaries, you have an obligation to provide source code if requested. GPL covered software can also be sold, and it's actually a violation of the license to deny people the right to sell the software or sublicense it.

For good reason. GPL is a tit-for-tat license, and is as far as you can get mutual aid within the current system.

This goes to show that free software (copyleft or permissive) is more convenient, it gives you more freedom.

Montague repeats the canary that the GPL is anti-commercial, it is not.

With the terrifying experiences rms had with proprietary software, it was the smart thing to do; use the copyright system against itself for the benefit of users.

Part 4/14

This requires some clarification. Let Foo and Bar be to programs:
If Foo is under the GPL or LGPL and Bar is an improved version of Foo, then Bar must be under the GPL or LGPL.
If Foo is under the GPL and Bar uses Foo as a library, it's sufficient that Bar is under a GPL-compatible license, that is: Bar can be relicensed under the GPL without asking the copyright holders.
If Foo is under the LGPL then Bar can be under a GPL-incompatible license or even use a proprietary software. This is some of the reason the LGPL was first released in 1991 to fill this gap between permissive licenses and strong copyleft licenses. We could call this gap weak copyleft.

Yes, and it has to this day done an excellent job at doing so.

If this is too restictive, there is allways the Lesser General Public License.
The GPL is a lot less complex than many EULAs for software out there and is very simple when it's powers are considered. Here is just a blanket statement.
Blatant lie, you can sell GPL-covered software. From the GPLv3 license gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html: "You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey, and you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee."

Part 5/14

Exageration: It's sufficient that it's under a GPL-compatible license.
If patenting mathematics you didn't invent with a corrupt patent office is what keep the dollars flowing, you probably have other concers than freedom.
Well, well, it's almost as if he's sad it is a difficult thing to mix non-free software with Linux.

If you want a software license to what the GPL does, 14 pages on A4 isn't that much, and as I said earlies a lot less than some EULAs: archive.is/50e1H (1025kiss.com/no-one-reads-the-terms-and-conditions-and-heres-why/). Choosing a permissive license because some places in the world, some of the legalities of the GPL are being ignored with regards to some programs, is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The long-term ramifications of using pushover licenses is that you drain the free software of work and give it away to corporations who take the code and lock it up.

Part 6/14

Linux is the most popular kernel in history, is used on hundres of millions of devices, including laptops, workstations, mobile phones, tablets, servers, mainframes and powers the world's most powerful supercomputers. It runs on almost anything and graphic card support is rapidly improving. I think we can thank the GPL for that.

Wrong! If you link to the GPL, it's okay as long as it's under a GPL-compatible license.

Apparently, the freedom of corporations to not give back is very important, but the freedom of the user to get the source code is not?

First we dealt with BSD-style licenses vs GPL, but now there is a third category: LGPL. Will this change anything?

Boo-fucking-hoo! You can't deny other people freedoms. What a shame.

Part 7/14

This is a good thing. It means you reap the fruits of your labour.

If software is crucial, make sure that it's free software so you can update it without legal nightmares.

This is as far as I can tell a very good strategy, and has worked well so far.

Complying with the GPL isn't very difficult, and that BSD license is only good if you actually have the software.

Take over proprietary software or make free software proprietary.

Or free software of any kind MIT license/LGPL/GPL/etc. can be maintained by an informal community of people who enjoy writing this software.

Part 8/14

The cphack case from 2000 is it's own study. Read cphack.robinlionheart.com/ for more info.
Then why use this example? Why not use an example where it is crystal clear that it was under the GPL?

But then you get those changes back and can focus on tailor the software specifically to the needs of your customers.

How does the GPL help large companies undercut small companies more effectively than pushover licenses. And even if several economic studies showed that the GPL had this effect it would still only be one of the arguments for or against using the GPL, depending upon who you are, of course.
In other words, the GPL is well suited for use as a marketing weapon, potentially reducing overall economic benefit and contributing to monopolistic behavior.

Part 9/14

And if you release software under a pushover license, it could also mean that a corporation takes your code, closes it up, then sells it. If this is about a business decision he should set up clear alternatives along with the pros, cons, risks and possible rewards of each alternative.

And would a pushover license work better? Besides, free software is in these days and often used when advertising the software.

Cry me a river for the people who sell enslaving software. Think of the slavers! What will they do for a living when all the slaves are free?

I consider this an acceptable loss.

It was intended to defend the freedoms of users, not make it easy for sellers of proprietary products.

They have the dollars, we have the community: let's use our strenght against tyrant software.

Part 10/14

A few years ago, using a free operating system was considered unrealistic; now it's simple: gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html

If they insist on using proprietary software, you should insist on not using it or buying it, it probably stinks and you have no chance at fixing it if the company goes belly up and takes the source with them into the void. This is also an acceptable loss.

Do you really benefit from botnet, malware, spyware, backdoors and abandonware? I don't think so.

The GPL is not a patent on ideas. Proprietary software developers are free to steal ideas from GPLed software. They can't, however take the source code without giving it back.

Linux has lasted 25 years now and is under the GPLv2.
Most of GPL-covered software can be downloaded gratis.
How does the GPL keep software from evolving over time?
For the trillionth time, the GPL does not forbid commercializiting of the software!

Part 11/14

If it's the "I don't want to go to court if someone doesn't provide source", then you could still release it under the GPL with the hope that someone else will take them to court. And unless you are both contributor and patent troll, using the GPL is fine.

And that's bad how? Force? If they don't like the terms, don't use it.

Valid question, how will you explain this away?

So now you have to set up a consortium to compete with people who don't like cooperation.

More buzzwords used by CEOs.

Why not use the GPL instead of hoping that someone will form a succsessfull consortium?

It enables a lot of different kind of behaviour.

It's not only reasonable, it's a necessity against botnet and mass surveillance.

Part 12/14

We can form free associations around GPL software as well. And then there were more MBA buzzwords.

If wide adoption is critical, it's definately worth considering. And no, he has not presented any compelling or interesting arguments as to how it benefits the "economy". Who's economy?

In other words: Tax payers should pay for the indirect development of non-free software

For the gazillionth time, the GPL does not forbid commercial use.

Here he compares persmissive license to proprietary software, but why not use the GPL?

With the GPL, others are required to release improvements to the research and again, no, the GPL does not forbid selling the software.

Part 13/14

Implementing a proposed standard under a pushover license is sometimes a good thing. lwn.net/2001/0301/a/rms-ov-license.php3

How does the GPL hurt the evolution of standards? And does really all software have to be written by corporation?

How does the BSD protect better against orphaning than GPL? Are they supposed to set up a consortium and hope it outcompetes parasites?

License proliferation is the problem, not the GPL.

Again, complying with the GPL is not a difficult thing, and GPLv3 is more lenient if you are a first time violator of the GPL. (If you fix the problem, and 60 days go by with no complaints from copyright holders, you are in the clear and your right to use the software is reinstated.) Are people in Nigera or Thailand beheaded for not providing source?

Part 14/14

The GPL forbids you from denying anyone the right to integrate the software into a commercial solution, provided it's under the same license. He repeats this like a mantra.

Instead, you are allowing yourself to be braindrained by your competitors, but hey, maybe a consortium will magically pop into existance and help you maintain your software.

Now you get to spend your time in your only life on this planet giving away your code without getting anything in return, except for well, maybe a pat in the back from the BSD-community.

This document did not make the case for pushover license, and is utter trash. Don't fall for the BSD-trap.

Shitty pdf here:

Frankly surprised to hear blatant lies come from the BSD license camp. I guess I respected them superficially more than I should have.

dota should run fine, looking at the benchmarks. even on open source drivers. the AMDGPU driver should be fairly mature by next year, so consider an AMD build. my experience with Nvidia on Linux has been awful.

copyrights, patents, and botnet software are NOT compatible with market socialism.

Thanks m8. You did a good job.

Patents, copyrights, and licenses should not exist.
Patents and copyrights allow people and entities to get a monopoly (by threat of violence of the state) to certain technologies.
Licenses (even permissive ones) still grant ownership and then give the user permissions. I don't think some one should have to ask permission to do something with software.
The GPL v3 is a legal document that requires a lawyer to interpret and a government to enforce. I see it as a license with a noble cause but flawed because it must operate within a broken system.
I also want to ask, why must software grant those freedoms in order to be "leftist"? In an ancom society, if someone makes a computer game and shares it online without including the source code, what is the harm done? I don't see why someone wouldn't include it but it doesn't seem like a requirement.
I also want to point out that permissive licenses tend to have a "realistic" approach. For example, if someone makes better encryption for web traffic that is designed to reduce identity theft and it releases under MIT you will likely see more people benefit from it because all browsers, regardless of license, can implement it. If any other license is picked it may not have the desired affect (to reduce identity theft) because certain browsers may refuse to implement it.

The ironic thing, of course, is that BSDs are far more accessible to working people and have undergone way less corporate meddling than GNU/Linux has. All of their internals are simple, well-documented, and reliable. They don't have the overengineered barriers to entry to development that Linux has placed, largely at the behest of monied steering committees.

This squabbling about licensing is just a Stallman meme that got carried away.

I actually wonder.

Does essentially "throwing one's code away" like the BSD license does actually keep porkies at bay?
They can make use of whatever library they want, then fuck off.
Whereas the GPL ensures that Novell, Microsoft et al become "partners invested in the open source community" and use their clout to leverage decision-making moving forward.

This is just totally off the top of my head.

At the end of the day I use BSD because it is a better operating system than Linux, which might as well be called Windows 10 pt. II at this point.

linuxfoundation.org/about/members

Holy shit. Open source developer here. Permissive licenses get raped by porky. Apple took FreeBSD, made some changes, rebranded it, and holy fuck, gave nothing back. Not even a sizable donation.

Open source licenses are the only way to make sure companies give back code.

Seriously, if you use Apple anything, make the world a better place and kill yourself.

The reason why open source licenses exist is because porkies would come by, take the code, contribute nothing back, and then laugh because 'we don't contribute because of muh possible competition.'

...

And a BSD license allows them to take the open source code make the code proprietary and sell it without releasing the code.

I'm far from an expert but I also haven't seen any evidence that open source is of any higher quality than free software. Aside from the usual "muh BSD" elitism, open source supposedly encourages companies to contribute code back, but I have yet to see it.

Open source != free (as in freedom) software

You cant abolish copyright until you abolish abolish any form of wage system, which means you have to wait until communism.

Socialism will make copyright-less software more common, hopefully.

daily reminder: when you are in doubt, always go full anarcho.

blagblagblag.org/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLAG_Linux_and_GNU

(checked)
This.

And to OP's point, permissive licenses ignore the political realities of intellectual property that allowed, for example, disney to patent stories that predated the company by a century.

It's little different than liberals ignoring the obvious power imbalance in the claim that workers and capitalists can negotiate wages in a free market because they both have the option to walk away.

Fedora 24 just came out…

A lot of amateur devs miss the appeal of lewnux by making a hundred thousand different "all in one" distros full of redundant package suites.

Most distros are derivatives…

Ubuntu is a derivative of Debian
Linux Mint, {X,K,Edu,L}ubuntu are a derivative of Ubuntu

Fedora is a derivative of Red Hat

Manjaro is a derivative of Arch

and so on and so on *sniff*

slackware mustard rice

Once again though: do you want Apple actively contributing to BSD development and influencing the direction the operating system heads in?

c

...

I think you mean free software licenses

e/g/in meme /g/ro!

I love the Reddit Fish!

hahahah b8 m8 XDDDDDD

ps: Install gentoo! XD

Valid point. Several of the Open Source Initiative's licenses wouldn't stop any company from doing exactly what Apple did.

BSD is basically open socialism, while Linux is communism. One is pulbic domain, the other is a communist country ruled with an iron fist.

To me both sides are better than Mac and Microsfot.

...

I think that's the point though. Most of the new distros are wasted effort, spent reinventing/reordering things in ways that have been done before. Really the OS would be better off if more longstanding problems were being tackled or radical improvements were being pursued with the same frequency.

Pls lurk.

While I sympathize with most of what you say, I consider the GPL a temporary defence, not a permanent solution. In the long run I would like to see the abolition of copyright, but as long as copyright exists, using the GPL in self-defence prevents resource-drain on the free software community.

Abolishing Intellectual Property before abolishing Capitalism is practically ensuring only rich people get to be artists (again), right?

There is no goddamn reason for the GTK File Picker to still be the piece of shit that it is in 2016.

...

tbh, that's not the file picker, and it looks as though you're using the KDE file manager anyway, which already has thumbnail support in the file picker (though I accept that you're using the file manager)

Even without copyright, I can't see what motivation people have to release the source of their programs; I know people who would happily give their program away for free, but not release the source for some stupid reason like the idea that someone's going to monetise their software.

...

Here is a fairly straightforward argument for you being wrong, OP:
Gnutists are almost universally fanatical freeloaders who think the world owes them a magical device that can do anything. Permissive license supporters are people who actually write and release open source projects and code.

Fucking Darwin, dude.

Dragging is unwieldy as fuck. I prefer to pick my files when uploading, and I would prefer to do it with the quality of something like PCManFM–instead of a half-assed uncustomizable piece of shit built for retards like Caja.

RMS is a fucking opportunist. He literally claimed that Free Software was a mixture of capitalism, communism and anarchism. Yes, he is that much of a pandering populist.

Freetards belong in the gulag, public domain is the only was to go.

*way

Do you mean copyleft?

no, he's just autistic and, like all Americans, he doesn't know what capitalism and communism actually is.

Autistic he is, but not stupid.
He is at least somewhat aware of what capitalism, communism, and anarchism are. It shows for his justifications.

By the way, even if he legit just made shit up as he went, that makes even a worse opportunist.

I disagree with RMS's position that non-free software being avaliable in repositories makes a distro non-free and much of his position is lifestylist as fuck.
However, I think his extreme position as a bastion of free software is valueable, without him we'd be stuck with corporate "opensource" but still propreitary software.
I also think he should go further than he does in some cases - such as his position that having art assets and such as intellectual property is fine.
While the GPL can be quite restrictive I think it is necessary to uphold free software while the software industry (including many linux contributors from large firms like intel) remains corporate.