Made with cancer

Whatever I place on Internet is PD as far as I'm concerned. I don't even put my real name.

I use WTFPL because all the stuff I write is garbage

GPL is literally an anarchist movement.

what license do libertarians support? in the sense of dont tread on me meme ayn rand meme

The GPL has more in common with the constitution than anarchy. BSD, MIT and the like are closer to anarchist.

Firstly, you're way overrating FSF politically, they're very legalistic. Not that this is bad, it's pragmatic, but it's not really that radical either.
Secondly, what is your point anyway? Liberals want liberal democracy with a free market and a strong state of law ("Rechstaat"). Anarchists want to abolish the state. They are adversaries of each other.

That's retarded. MIT and BSD are business-friendly open source licenses. GPL is a free software license that triggers open source cucks. That's all there is to it.

In practice they seem to use MIT mostly.

what are the differences between all those licenses. mit, gpl, wtfpl, etc etc?

rtfm

The MIT license says that you can do anything with the code you want. You can use it, distribute it, modify it, use it in your own software, and you don't have to give the source code of what you make to anyone unless you want to.

The GPL says you can use the code, distribute it, modify it, use it in your own software, etcetera, but you need to let other people do the same. The GPLed code you received is free software (aka open source), and any program that uses that same code has to be free software too.

The WTFPL is the MIT license's edgy little brother that likes to say "fuck" a lot.

Permissive and business-friendly, the most popular one currently. Not copyleft but compatible. Open source.
Most radical, protects the user and code sharing. Copyleft. Free software.
Permissive and business-friendly. Contrarian for the sake of it and being loud about it - instead of just not using any license at all, but that wouldn't be business-friendly anymore and actually radical :^)

All this license faggotry is gay af. Unless you're actually planning to sue people who violate the license, it doesn't fucking matter.

It's worse. Because if you do plan to sue you'll have to defend the whole license, rather than just your rights. That's why I only release stuff anonymously or with all rights reserved.

There's multiple ways software licenses function:
- permissive ones give an explicit green light for you to copy and reuse the code however you want.
- copyleft ones give a warning to whoever is thinking of copying the code and not sharing their own. I honestly believe it somewhat works because devs who use it are getting pressured to switch to a more permissive license.
- no license just confuses people because they're bureaucratic/autistic cucks who need explicit rules to follow, they will bitch to you that you should add a license. Practically probably has a similar although lesser effect as copyleft.

Sounds like fun.
Really, there's a reason people are autistic about licenses. The default behavior of copyright is retarded and dangerous.

That's a benefit in my eyes. It disincentivizes commercial use of my code, while it does nothing to stop hobbyists from using it in their projects.

Most projects have absolutely nothing worth reusing. I understand agonizing over the license for you fully functional word processor, but people kvetch over the license on their fizzbuzz script. That's fucking retarded.

Let's get real, the "whoever" is a jewish shekelcorp. Jewish shekelcorp couldn't care less about some words on the screen because they have lawyers and will go for it regardless. So the license only matters if your project is so big that it's able and willing to hire legal help and sue people. Otherwise, what are you gonna do, bitch on plebbit's r/tech that MoisheCorp has stolen your code? Moishe will sic his army of PR drones on you and crush you anyhow.

That's just self-aggrandizing trolling. It's like people who change pronouns in comments, they are trying to feel important by getting the dev to change the license because they whine enough. Not because they are dying to steal the code and use it in their proprietary crap. In reality, if there was any code in your project that could be stolen and improve their profit, they would just steal it and set aside some cash for the lawyer fund.

Exactly. Which is why no license not only has little harm, but keeps undesirables away.

So let me get this straight: You found someone's shitty project, and the author cared so little about it they didn't even bother putting a license. You are so incompetent, that it actually makes a difference to you whether you can reuse code from a shitty hobby program, but you're too autistic to shoot him an email and ask if that's cool. Despite this, you manage to shit out a program that becomes successful enough that the guy even hears about it, decides to investigate your code base, and becomes so incensed that he's willing to invest thousands of dollars on a lawsuit that will just end with a few hundred dollars fine for you and a few hours of community service, even if he manages to win?

This is just not realistic. I'm not saying licensing is stupid. If you have a significant codebase with original algorithms, or valuable modules, with many months or years of serious work having gone into it, by all means license it. But then the correct license will be determined by much more objective factors than mere philosophical opinion.

The vast majority of license debates I see are about trivial programs where the only factor is which license you consider ideologically preferable, so it becomes a proxy to debate politics rather than the future of the project, in the meanwhile derailing a discussion meant to be about the project.

...

that guy is on some hard drugs
any proper autist will side with GNU/dad, the rest are normies, junkies and alcoholics, respectively

GPL is like the most neutral possible license.
They know that the GPL authorize you to sell software and even sell service around it ? right ?

You have to redistribute it with the same license.
you can do what ever you want with it even not redistributing the code for any reasons.
Compatible with all license
Not copyleft/open source
You have to redistribute it with the same license.
Share the source code.
You cannot restrain the user to execute the software.
Compatible with most license (MIT,BSD,MPL, apache2, x11 etc...).
Copyleft/Free software
No restriction
You can even re-license the software under another license.
Compatible with all license
Not copyleft/Meme license
You have to redistribute it with the same license.
You can do what ever you want with it even not redistributing the code for any reasons.
Compatible with all license
Not copyleft/open source
You have to redistribute it with the same license
Share the source code.
Trademarks are permitted thus you can force someone to change the name of the software if you don't want them to use it in a distribution.
Compatible with most license (MIT,BSD,MPL, apache2, x11 etc...)
Medium Copyleft/ Free software

This
It was meant for freedom.

Well it depends of the definition of anarchist.
Most people don't know the real definition of anarchist which is people collaborating collectively with a sets of rules and without authority to force them to do so.
I like this but thanks to human nature I doubt it to even exist one day.

Enjoy being cucked

You have no idea of how the copyright system works.

Thus allowing to close the source and never have any obligation to show it has proof of anything
Remember minix ? because Intel ME use minix and fucks every computer in the world thanks to the permissive BSD license.
Permissive licenses like the MIT or BSD are so small and poorly detailed that they inherit most rules of the broken copyright system.

Copyleft is easier than just that.
The rules are:
-Share the source code if asked and if you publish the binary to the public you have to share the source code to the public.
You can't stop someone from executing the code.
We actually need licenses (for now) because the laws are retarded.

This user gets it.

The GPL was made for freedom of use.
It discourages abusive behavior either when it's monetary or when you want to abuse someone with bad functions.
Of course it doesn't directly stops someone but at least it anyone can fork and make remove unwanted bad part if necessary.

If the GPL wasn't working microsoft would have integrated a lot of free software in it a long time ago.
Has strange has it sounds in these kind of big companies the first thing they do is to look at the license even before looking at the technical benefits.

In computer security the rule is that you don't consider yourself safe and you do everything possible to make yourself safe.
If by the greatest of hazard that person founds out about it and is retarded enough to sue you then you're in the shit.

Licensing isn't about ideology it's about what is legal or not to do.
The GPL is the most neutral of them.

I think people who write autistic multi-page multi-quote replies on imageboards is worse, personally. That and bootstrap.

MINIX is still free, you can download it from minix3.org. Intel , you, or someone else can fork it and keep changes private, but the original project will still go on.
Anyway if they didn't have MINIX, Intel would have just licensed a proprietary OS, or wrote their own. You don't actually believe they're going to give you any details about the inside of their secret architectures, do you? If they actually wanted to be open and vendor/programmer-friendly, they would simply release ALL the details of their chips, and then it wouldn't make a lick of difference what licence they use.

What about MPL? It's a fair copyleft license and business friendly too.

flushpost

That isn't something good. What is good is user-friendly. And GPL already does that well. Anything better than GPL will be an even stronger copyleft license, not weaker.

It is petty, but I'd be lying if I said it didn't annoy the piss out of me. There's something so effeminate (in a bad way) about it.

I forgot you live in the police states of america(tm). Elsewhere in the world we call that a neoconservative.
It's funny how you guys have no left to speak of, yet somehow spend ridiculous amounts of time whining about how terrible the left is.
(((They))) really did a job on you guys.

1. I don't live in burgerland; 2. I didn't speak of the left but of liberals. If you're not a burger, as you seem to imply, then you should know that liberalism and the left are entirely different ideologies. And you think of yourself as non-americanized? I'm disappointed, really.

You don't seem to understand. The default no-license behavior is "all rights reserved", which means you can sue anyone using your code anytime you want because you hold the rights to the code. This is why people hate it. And before you say "they can trust me", I surely wouldn't trust some random autist from the internet.

The major issue with GPL comes from its viral nature. Even FSF realized this issue and made LGPL for libraries.

I never saw that as an issue but as a cunning strategy. I don't think FSF see it as an issue either, they just know that vanilla GPL is not applicable to all situations so they invent different variations out of pragmatism instead of trying to be ideologically pure.

That's exactly my point. It prevents lawful commercial use of my work and is of absolutely no concern to hobbyists who need something for a private project.

The GPL is not viral at all. This misunderstanding comes from the confusion about what the GPL requires. People understand that when you distribute someone else's GPL software, the software that you write must also be GPL. This is false. The GPL requires that the software you write must be compatible with the GPL if you want to distribute a combined work with a GPL project.

since we are talking about license, whats a license that works for books? a gpl license would allow to change the text and alter it, so it doesnt work.
it has to be a license that allows free distribution and sharing but that has to keep the document as is

how? not being able to distribute however i want is anti constitution and kinda anti freedom

Where are these American "leftist" liberals you are speaking of?

...

If your graph has all the data points clustered together like that, it's a sign that your scales are set up incorrectly.

Or that the candidates are the exact same representatives of the 1% with different faces.

One of the creative commons licenses should handle it. Attribution, non-commercial, no derivative works, so CC BY-NC-ND.

creativecommons.org/licenses/ for more info.

Kys, cuck.

You have no idea what cancer looks like. Pic very related

aaand this

Copyright was a mistake, Government-protected monopolies over ideas is retarded and anyone who disagrees is literally Disney

...

Something relatively leftist compared to the rest of American politics then, I suppose.

Go back to reddit

Where is this graph from?

I'd say the bigger cancer in that pic is the cuckoldry license.

copyright does not protect ideas.

You know political "science" is a joke when being pro-fag marriage, abortion on demand, positive discrimination on the basis of race, religion and gender and drug legalization is considered right wing and only slightly left of those who oppose all of those.
Really makes you think.

On the graphs given, pro-fag marriage and abortion on demand are libertarian policies, while discrimination is an authoritarian policy. None of them have to do with the left/right axis, which is economic.

That's confusing. I wouldn't have associated conservative with authoritarian at all really.
But either way the point still stands.

surrre

Fuck off with your facts, Holla Forums

It's not confusing at all. Libertarian is freedom, do whatever you like. Authoritarian is the government telling you what you can and can't do. And in that graph, that lib/auth y-axis is specifically talking about social issues.

With marriage, restricting it to man/woman only is authoritarian, while letting whomever get married is libertarian.
With abortion, making it illegal is authoritarian, while allowing it is libertarian.
With discrimination, quotas for specific flavour-of-the-month minorities is authoritarian, while giving everyone the same chance is libertarian.
And with drugs, which I forgot to mention earlier, making them illegal and trying to wage war on their use is authoritarian, and letting adults do what they like with their own bodies is libertarian.

Conservative doesn't have to equal authoritarian. It's just that most people who label themselves conservative have views that involve a lot of government mandated rules and restrictions on society.

Copyright was absolutely not a mistake, it does what it was always its intention. The mistake was that people failed to resist it.

Marriage is by definition between a man and a woman. Nothing to do with "rights".

The rest of your shit is a mixed bag of right or wrong. You're still a retarded, or young lolbertarian.

jew

tranny

I always considered doing some variation of "Made with

Would this be better?

Lets say I memorize every byte that exists in a copyrighted song and type them on my friend's computers so that they can have the song exactly as it is on the cd. This violates copyright, the idea of the instructions of how to make the song are intellectual property. Now if I go and steal a bunch of CDs that is entirely different because I'm not copying them, I'm stealing them.

Program code and data are ideas of how to make a program/song/etc and they are protected by copyright therefore copyright protects ideas.

The intention was not initially to allow people to patent troll and abuse it to have prolonged monopolies over ideas, it was to encourage and reward creativity with temporary 30 year monopolies (which was still too long). It only became what it is now through extensions and abuse of the system.

women in tech generally

Fucking disgusting.

Where's the difference? Still slave license.

still gay as fuck
it would be better if it was:
and license was not a thing taken into consideration when writing some text to a .js file and posting that file on the internet

wat.

XDD anything remotely libertarian is automatically wrong because me and a bunch of faggots laugh at you XD XD
>>>/reddit/

...

I dont know what GPL and BSD mean, but smell bullshit with that story.

Stallman isn't broke.
The linux mint creators and coders are NOT broke, and I downloaded linux mint for $0.
The coders of libre office are not broke, and I paid $0 to use it.

strong jaws are hot because your sons will inherit them. fucking pleb.

It's obviously not based on a single particular real story. He says it happened to the eldest brother-in-law of the cousin of a friend of his' colleague at work. It's a joke. But it's based on things that do happen.

The BSD licenses are permissive. The GPL is copyleft. Both are free/open source, but differently. Stallman's work, Linux Mint and Libreoffice are all mostly copylefted. Your examples confirm his story. Read this, maybe:
gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html

Oh right, I get now, thanks.

But it's still pretty bs, the guy earned a ton of money before those other guys created a derivative work off his one and could have used the fame and the money acquired to either create a company of coders to improve his licence (which those other guys did) or make a ton of money and invest it in the stock market and live off the profits.

It's not about "improving license" though, because you can change license trivially. Licenses are stupidly easy to change. I could go to one of my hobby repositories and change the license now for fun. It's about people who use the BSD and get upset about people doing what the license says. Permissive licenses are fine, but you have to know exactly what you're getting into. People frequently use something like BSD and then get upset when people don't treat it as the GPL. More importantly, plenty of people use the BSD assuming that their stuff will only be used by BSD projects and corporations behind closed doors, and that their code won't ever be forked by somebody who prefers the GPL or something.

The important thing is that the story is a fictional story, but it is criticizing something that actually happens, which is people who use a license and then are upset that people are abiding by the license in ways that they don't like, when they could have just used a license that would have enforced people using it only in a way they do like (LGPL would have possibly been better). Tons of people choose BSD or MIT because they're trendy without considering that they don't actually offer what they want. I use multiple different licenses for personal projects on a regular basis because I care about how they're going to be used. It's not a decision that should be taken lightly.

Yeah I meant something similar, what I wanted to say is that even with a permissive licence, he still could have made a lot of money off his project - enough to be able to retire if he would have been smart about it.

But yes, as you said, people use the wrong licence then wonder why people use the code in a way that is unprofitable to the original programmer but totally allowable and legal.
Stupid can't be cured.

because anarchists are primarily anti (centralized) power and copylefts are a giant wrench in the gears of mega corps.
also contracts can be enforced decentrally, without government. check vid related for some ideas.
youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o

unless you could somehow control who gets to be part of the social space..

whats wrong with that?

Something like a GPL for books is the GFDL (GNU Free Documentation License). It does allow modification.

...

theres more to statist marriage
like tax benefits and forcing priests to commence with anti-discrimation laws
truly libertarin would be to completly stay out ofpeoples affairs; leave it up to the religious institutions and no tax cuts for anyone because there is no tax. and the official registry buerocracy is irrellevant too.

might I kindly suggest using identitarian instead of nationalist

...

Why do you talk like a fag?

Do you realize, you are quoting a literal cuck here.
twitter.com/hintjens
Gladly he died recently, but still ZeroMQ is one of the most pozzed projects around.

Also the whole fork thing happened to them
infoq.com/news/2012/03/Crossroads-IO