Reminder that the GPL is evil

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

Reminder that the GPL is evil

Other urls found in this thread:

gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html
marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=137392506516022&w=2
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

In other words, the BSD license is the license of choice for cuckolds.

it allows developers and companies to spend their time making money off your hard work and violating user freedoms with your code.

fuck off bsd-cuck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dubs of truth

Nothing wrong with that. How else can we continue a system where white men sit at home on foodstamps while coding the infrastructure of the world for free, while gay pajeets and women sit and monkey around collecting their pay for them?

Please be a bit more tolerant next time.

That sounds terrible. Why would anyone want a software to devolve into being maintained by the ones who understand it the best?

Reminder that GPL is freedom and other licenses are for cucks.

tbh tru freedom includes freedom to be cucked

True.
That's why WTFPL exists.

Cancer.

why not public domain????????

lol

Because they have to mask their cucked nature with edginess.

That sounds terrible. Why would anyone want a software to devolve into being maintained by the ones who understand it the best?

So do Netflix and Hulu work on the BSDs yet?

Consider re-read it.

...

MIT License or LGPL at most.

We took a wrong turn in software design years before that. The GUI was a mistake. Command line is more natural to normal human interaction methods.

Can the other children in the class spot the faggot?

This is exactly who the GPL benefits, with Android and other products based on your hard work. The GPL does not benefit the original developer unless they dual license.

The QPL is the anti-cuck free software license. Forkers have to distribute their modifications as patches, which gives the original developer more power. I don't like BSD either. If I wanted someone to make money from my software, it should be me, not Apple and Google.

When I write free code under the BSD license I'm actually also writing proprietary code that someone else might use.
If I don't want to write proprietary code BSD/MIT is not an option. GPL ensures the free code I wrote does not become proprietary in the future.

Android suffers because it's GPL v2. GPL v3 fixes the tivoization issue, but Linux is hard to re-license. Probably impossible. As for getting "paid", we do get paid: in code.
QPL is not a free license.

Well nothing good happened in the last 30 years anyway. And we know this because if it did then we'd have it for free.
That's the deal. Nobody is allowed to make money and in return we all get amazing futuristic software. Like Xorg and Emacs, woah it's like an OS inside my editor, and Vim, future tech modal editors.
Cause otherwise it'd be like we killed every part of the software industry that wasn't Microsoft for essentially nothing.

building your own walled garden with gpl,
now thats """open""" source

Linux is the only good thing released under GPL. What's your point?

...

Linus will never re-license it because he thinks that prevenring tivoization is retarded.

What did he mean by this

use licensezero instead

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
gtfo

...

You're missing another form of capital when you're thinking about the lost capital of not being paid while others profit: that company may love your BSD-licensed code but need it extended in certain ways to better fit their proprietary product and would be willing to payroll you well to do it (if you negotiate correctly).

Or, you know, you could be working with them to extend your BSD project for money if you weren't such a wound-up stooge.

Money has to trade hands. Not even an AI could code for free as it would need to find a way to pay for the power it consumes and computers on which to run. Non-distribution non-disclosure licenses-to-use pay a biological intelligence to sit there and hack out solutions.

So with GPL, you often get lots of shit-engineered software with little foresight into future modifications, a quilted patchwork of bits written by hobbyists with a narrow view of what the overall architecture of the project should be. You get shitshows like LibreOffice Calc vs MS Excel, and anyone who's actually pushed both with lots of data know how quickly Calc falls apart. Yes, bugs can exist in both FOSS and proprietary software, but where proprietary wins is the autists writing the code are being paid hansomly for their autism. Proprietary could get all the security benefits of FOSS (bug checks, lots of eyes on code, etc) by opening their code to public view with a public repository, but still have an EULA which basically says "if we catch you using this for business/commercial/employment/consultative purposes without a license, we reserve the right to sue you for big big HUGE monies!"

nigger what

tl;dr kys cuck license lover

If you are a good, competent, non-meme developer, your BSD code is a portfolio of your quality on display which your future contract counter-party may use in his project without fear of license contamination.

You are
A==>B

I kiss myself every morning when I awake. I am such a beautiful mind.

You can always dual license. BSD cucks sure love to lie to push their disgusting licensing habits. Also, I love how your number one priority is whoring yourself at the expense of any users or even your own vision of a project. Cuck license indeed.

Try pitching the GPL to Coca-Cola LOL fucking gommunists.

Only if you think a drug dealer dropping good shit as samplers is cuck. :^)

What's cuck is you can't figure out how to parlay BSD code into a money stream so you get pissed and rush into the arms of Richard Stallman-Marx for safety from the mean bad entropic world.

BSD license basically says
A) I made this
B) When you make copies, include this list
C) Do whatever you want in the confines of (A) and (B)

Basically it's an executable business card, GNU/dumbshits.

t. cuck

gommie

too restrictive. if you are going to be a cuck, at least release your shit into the public domain

You're seriously retatded and don't understand free software.

BSD-fags are the anarchocapitalists of the FOSS world. You can't get more free than us.

I have to eat. I'm going to include a "Call this Wizard if you like his magick and want him to write some private magick of your own!"

What's that?

Gas yourself.

lmao you can't dual license. holy shit does anyone even read these licenses before they sign over all their work to it.

...

What is Qt?

Translation:

so this is the power of dual license

What's the point of even doing that? The commercial licence is for the whole Qt code base.
Would you be trying to make someone else's FOSS Qt application into a proprietary one?

When I hear dual license. The first thing that springs to mind is totally separate and distinct licenses that can never touch each other.

Commie bullshit.

"Isn't it ironic that the proprietary software developers call us communists? We are the ones who have provided for a free market, where they allow only monopoly. … if the user chooses this proprietary software package, he then falls into this monopoly for support … the only way to escape from monopoly is to escape from proprietary software, and that is what the free software movement is all about. We want you to escape and our work is to help you escape. We hope you will escape to the free world."
Richard M. Stallman

HAH! Isn't that one of the "Nazis, watch out!" commie poseurs?

I'll take "What is OSS?" for $500, Alex.

Aaaaand a response from the proprietary world:

"For independent software developers seeking a livelihood, what does the LINUX model of 'Open Source Software' offer? The answer is short and simple. Nothing. Aside from the fantasy business model of selling people something that is available for nothing, there exists no viable LINUX open-source business model. This is by design. The 'GNU General Public License' (GNU GPL) under which LINUX open-source software is distributed dictates a model of software development based entirely upon unpaid labor, collectivization of effort, forced confiscation of private property, prohibition of Free Enterprise as 'Evil', and demonization of 'Enemies' who do not use the GNU GPL. History has shown us this model before. This model is called Communism. The frequent and disengenuous use of the term 'Freedom' throughout the GNU GPL is deceptive. What 'freedom' do Free Open Source Software (FOSS) developers gain by licensing their source code under the GNU GPL? They gain the freedom to distribute their work for nothing. They gain the freedom to sue in a court of law, with the aim of seizing intellectual private property, anyone who uses their work in a product. They gain the freedom to be sued themselves if they use any GNU GPL licensed component in a product and do not freely distribute the source code for their entire work, so that anyone, anywhere, can field a clone of the product they labored to create. The authors of the GNU GPL defend this with the political manifesto that Free Enterprise in computer software is 'Evil'. So, how does the GNU GPL differ from Communism? It doesn't. The GNU GPL is a perfect realization of Communism. Marxist economic models have been tried before, and the verdict of history is grim. As a vector of Communism, the GNU GPL is profoundly dangerous since it is a 'viral' form of licensing. Under this cynical lawyer trick, any system contaminated by a GNU GPL component, no matter how insignificant relative to the whole, is from that point on legally hijacked. The copyright holder of the GNU GPL component can sue for release of all source code for the entire system. Anyone who uses any component of the compromised system will find themselves similarly entangled in liability. The mechanism of the GNU GPL is identical to a computer virus. The GNU GPL is viral malware that creates an endlessly self-propagating legal liability. Software source code distributed under terms that empower lawsuits demanding the intellectual private property of anyone foolish enough to use it, is not 'Free'. It is fraudulent to say that it is. The cost of GNU GPL source code is your explicit agreement to be enslaved by Communist doctrine, to enslave anyone who uses your source code to Communist doctrine, and to be sued in a court of law for any deviation from Communist doctrine. It is a deceitful absurdity for the 'Free Software Foundation (FSF) to claim that it is a 'charitable organization' that is 'Defending Freedom' by using lawyers and litigation to dictate Communism as the sole 'ethical' model for software development."

Aaaaand a response from the proprietary world:

"For independent software developers seeking a livelihood, what does the LINUX model of 'Open Source Software' offer? The answer is short and simple. Nothing. Aside from the fantasy business model of selling people something that is available for nothing, there exists no viable LINUX open-source business model. This is by design. The 'GNU General Public License' (GNU GPL) under which LINUX open-source software is distributed dictates a model of software development based entirely upon unpaid labor, collectivization of effort, forced confiscation of private property, prohibition of Free Enterprise as 'Evil', and demonization of 'Enemies' who do not use the GNU GPL. History has shown us this model before. This model is called Communism. The frequent and disengenuous use of the term 'Freedom' throughout the GNU GPL is deceptive. What 'freedom' do Free Open Source Software (FOSS) developers gain by licensing their source code under the GNU GPL? They gain the freedom to distribute their work for nothing. They gain the freedom to sue in a court of law, with the aim of seizing intellectual private property, anyone who uses their work in a product. They gain the freedom to be sued themselves if they use any GNU GPL licensed component in a product and do not freely distribute the source code for their entire work, so that anyone, anywhere, can field a clone of the product they labored to create. The authors of the GNU GPL defend this with the political manifesto that Free Enterprise in computer software is 'Evil'. So, how does the GNU GPL differ from Communism? It doesn't. The GNU GPL is a perfect realization of Communism. Marxist economic models have been tried before, and the verdict of history is grim. As a vector of Communism, the GNU GPL is profoundly dangerous since it is a 'viral' form of licensing. Under this cynical lawyer trick, any system contaminated by a GNU GPL component, no matter how insignificant relative to the whole, is from that point on legally hijacked. The copyright holder of the GNU GPL component can sue for release of all source code for the entire system. Anyone who uses any component of the compromised system will find themselves similarly entangled in liability. The mechanism of the GNU GPL is identical to a computer virus. The GNU GPL is viral malware that creates an endlessly self-propagating legal liability. Software source code distributed under terms that empower lawsuits demanding the intellectual private property of anyone foolish enough to use it, is not 'Free'. It is fraudulent to say that it is. The cost of GNU GPL source code is your explicit agreement to be enslaved by Communist doctrine, to enslave anyone who uses your source code to Communist doctrine, and to be sued in a court of law for any deviation from Communist doctrine. It is a deceitful absurdity for the 'Free Software Foundation (FSF) to claim that it is a 'charitable organization' that is 'Defending Freedom' by using lawyers and litigation to dictate Communism as the sole 'ethical' model for software development."

There's no false dichotomy. OSS (OSI definition) is still Free Software.

You are not forced to use GPL'd software. You are free to roll your own cuckware, that Apple can rent backdoored to Fashionistas. As pointed out, software can be copied without ANY damage to the original. Wheras land can only be used by a limited number of people, one piece of software can be used by millions without problems. So discussion about copyright has to be different from discussions about private property rights PPR. When PPR is discussed the first thing that is brought up is what I just mentioned, that land and resourses are finite. That does not hold for software so copyright has to be justified in much more complex ways.

The point that land and software (in either source code or binary form) can be distributed in extremely different ways still stands. If someone doesn't recieve corresponding source code, they are cut of from improving it themselves.

tl;dr: Discussions about private property rights and (((intellectual "property" rights))) have radically different premises.

(pic not related)

Yeah, horrible to have software infected with freedom. This is all bullshit. If you want your software proprietary just copyright it. If you want to be microsoft, be microsoft. That's standard practice and no one is going to stop you. No need to go into any debate about licenses at all.

Really it's more like a spider plant: It grows where the copyright holder puts it. It does not "infect" anything.

Orwellian as fuck. FOSS licenses are far more restrictive than OSS licenses.

>>>/india/

Nice strawman.
This belongs to the author inherently, before licensing is even considered, by virtue of him creating. Men typically don't create land,and codified land stewardship is therefore analogous to licensing, not copyright.

This board is full of fucking retards.

I'm a white man who writes OSS under non-libre licensing, and my software propagates faster and wider than your GNUisance code.

You should probably abstain from metaphors and abstract thinking in general.

Just doing your part in ruining the world. Women in tech everywhere salute you for your contribution.

Because my software is ACTUALLY free to use, and doesn't impose restrictions, I'm ruining the world? You're a menace to this board.

Are you retarded? A virus dose not need to be manually put into people bodies to infect them.

This is a perfect demonstration of you not understanding how metaphors work. How embarrassing for you. No metaphor is perfect; you're not supposed to enumerate boundary conditions as proof that the metaphor is invalid. That's literally the opposite of how metaphors work.

Yes.

no u

At least develop a consistent worldview before spewing your ideas everywhere.

You're like those "war is peace" faggits in that dystopian britbong novel.

1. Inclusions of my software will never be restricted
2. Inclusion of my software, alone, will never lead to being dragged in front of a governmental body or criminal liability
3. Inclusion of my software, alone, will never lead to fines under threat of imprisonment.

My licensing satisfies ever definition of "freedom" available. GNUisance code fails them all.

And the fact that RMS takes 10 minutes to explain his very special definition of freedom, which only works when we're all under the same yoke, should be a big tip-off. His definition is indistinguishable from the version of "freedom" as practiced by communistic governments of the 20th century.

If I'm a big bully and I go around smacking everyone around me and take their shit, is stopping me an act detrimental to freedom? Your argument is yes, because you repress the freedom of the bully. My argument is no, because the bully infringes on everyone elses freedom. Neither is technically wrong, but yours is stupid. (protip: we don't have a free market.)

But the problem is, we already live in a totalitarian system. It's technically not communism, but for all intents and purposes it's indistinguishable on all important points. Might as well try to keep your handlers a little bit in line instead of just rolling over and let them rape you with a smile on your face.

BSD would be "less restrictions" if we didnt live in a society where the government uses intellectual property.
Freedom to leverage the government to stomp on other peoples freedom is not 'freedom'.
The GPL imposes freedom upon what is by default authoritarian.

"Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my face begins."

To your second point, I'm inclined to agree, though we live under a cascading set of jurisdictions under a republican form of government which has gone awry (presuming you mean the USA). I don't see how this relates to the discussion, however, because license adoption and software inclusion is voluntary, and the copyright holder chooses the license.

Personally I don't care what you do with what you create. Giving it away is commendable in my view. I don't see the need for the BSD shit, that's just vanity. Make it public domain if you don't care.

But it's not about that, it's about some systemic generalized problems in our society, which is a totalitarian oligarchic weird blend of the worst aspects of corporate monopoly capitalism and socialist bureaucracy. Young men are compelled to create, they will create whether they are rewarded for it or not. A good system will reward that, so as to make this self-sustaining. A bad system will employ a slash and burn type mentality to it, where you squeeze the soil for all it's nutrients until it's barren. We have a bad system.

For all his flaws Stallman saw quite clearly where things were headed with this exploitative neo-vassalization of young men in tech. His shit doesn't fix the system one bit, but it throws some sand in their cogs at least, forcing them to give some morsels back for what they take. This drives the establishment insane because they feel you should work for them for free and go die in poverty like a good serf when you've expended your energy. Which is what the "open source" movement is about. Did you think intel-front monsters like Google pushes open source out of the goodness of their hearts?

If we take it as a given that human beings can be trusted to act in there own best interest, not absolutely but to the extent that their visibility of consequences allows, it would seem that your concern is unfounded. A person with an IQ high enough to write software for a major corporation, should be well enough equipped to decide if taking a particular job is in his own self-interest.

You'll find the most "libre" licenses in software which changes the least, and that is adopted the least. And so that would be core utils, which is exactly what we see.. To take another step and say that ALL software should be yoked under restrictive licensing, or else you're not "free", is Orwellian doublespeak as the dictionary proves. Libre software is highly restrictive because that's the only way Stallman's software utopia can be realized. If using such licenses for ALL software were most beneficial for the author, we would see it adopted more frequently by software startups which have 1-3 employees. Software developers have more autonomy and control than any other builders I can think of throughout the course of humanity.

I meant to say, "included as a component to a larger piece of software".

Furthermore, I don't think your descriptions of what a "good" system look like and what a "bad" system looks like can be taken for granted. If a creative person wants to work themselves to death on their masterpiece, he will. He will use himself up, voluntarily. Keep in mind that value is relative to individual desire, and speaking in harsh aggregates and idealism leads to central planning and oppression to attain those ideals.

A persons IQ doesn't really apply. Everyone has to live within the confines of the society they are a part of. A high IQ slave works for his "own self-interest" in the sense that he has no other choice. It's not an optimal situation for him by any means.

As for your example about start-ups, licensing doesn't really come into play. They should just copyright their shit and be done with, no need to mess about. I'm not defending GPL as a proponent of "stallman's software utopia" which is a completely unrealistic idea. I'm defending it's use in direct conjunction with the "open source" phenomenon, which is in reality a free labour racket by the corporate monopolies. Basically the situation I'm talking about is the systemic phenomenon where young western men are displaced from the workforce and markets in general through social programs and indoctrination, while still maintaining it's technical base, only now in a rapidly increasing degree for free. It's a horrible deal and it won't last, that's the only positive to it.

Speaking of freedom at all in an unfree world is Orwellian doublespeak in a way either way you look at it. For me it's not really about freedom at all, which seems like a pipe-dream, but a pragmatic view of restraining your rulers as much as possible. Because as history has shown, they will take it all if you let them.

Nah, I'm not a relativist. Obviously when I'm talking about good and bad that's my personal opinions, which shouldn't need to be stated. You might disagree, but that's you.

1/1

Ok lets compare:

GPLv3
Freedom 0:
Freedom 1:
Freedom 2:
Freedom 3:

BSD
Freedom 0:
This freedom can and can't exist at the same time since the license doesn't require the software to let people execute the software on other platforms or a modified version on the same platform if they want to.
Freedom 1:
This freedom can and can't exist at the same time since a company isn't required to share the source code when they distribute it, example with nintendo who doesn't share their modified version of the BSD kernel or the Intel management engine who uses minix.
Freedom 2:
This freedom can and can't exist at the same time since it depends on the company that did or didn't share their modifications of the distributed product they made.
Freedom 3:
This freedom can and can't exist at the same time since it depends on the companion that did or didn't share their modifications of the distributed product they made thus also ultimately affecting freedom 0.

This is why BSD is a cuck license it depends on the will of the company that uses it to share the modifications or even let a users make a modification on some thing that he normally ==OWNS==
People get cucked by using this license.

Implying that the GPL can't be commercialized.
Just respect the license and it can always be commercialized.

Implying that a developer can't understand that he just has to share the source code when he gives a binary to someone.
Implying that companies doesn't have a juridical department or lawyers to check the licenses.

ImProudToBeaCuck.jpg

The GPL benefits anyone who uses it.
If a developer wants to make a financial benefit out of it he should begin to sell his services.

gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html
The QPL is a poorly written license so poor that it isn't accepted by Debian and it's ok with the FSF guideline but not with the GPL.
This is one of the most confusing licenses that I have ever seen.

One of the point of the GPL is to have transparency about research if you bullshit people about research your work isn't going to last long.

This is nonsense in a company there's 99% chance that in your contract it's stated you don't own the copyright of what you do.

Actually most of the drivers are under the GPLv2+
The linux kernel could migrate to the GPLv3 license without that much effort.
True but we can also live on the services that we offer to people or sell the software.

2/2

First proof.
Secondly, And ? part of the work is already done if a company or someone want to make modifications it's less work and they can make a benefit out of it or pay the developer of the project to make the said modifications.
>a quilted patchwork of bits written by hobbyists with a narrow view of what the overall architecture of the project should be.
Implying not professional work
marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=137392506516022&w=2
LibreOffice is under the MPLv2 and you are complaining about JAVA developers.

You forgot the part where it says you can't modify the software/hardware.
And still not letting people own their hardware that they bought

The cuck part is that if a company use the BSD code into it's product like intel did with the ME and not allowing the users to have control of that then you are cucking the normally owners of the product.
If you want to make a living out of free software it's better on the long term to make maintenance contracts and you are paid monthly for your services for X companies.
That means that you gain money for the work that is asked do but also for the work that you don't do (depending on what you put in the contract).
For example you can guaranty that you each week you verify X or that you can correct X numbers of problems.
There's also the ticket system if you want.
A ticket cost X if a company wants more of your services but they don't know when they need them you can sell them batches of maintenance tickets (that has a of course expiring date) the probabilities of them using all the tickets before the expiration is low, meaning that you multiply your benefice and even more if the problem they ask you to fix doesn't require lots of time.
The whole point of the actual money system is to multiple the initial costs/benefits and there's loads of way without removing the users freedoms.

Ok so with this BSD license I added a contract that you need to respect
Thank you for your forced cooperation

Another one
Thank you for your forced cooperation

And ? why would you make them pay for something they already paid for ?
It also guaranties freedom 1,2 and 3 to be possible.
If you want to sell your source code at higher price just change the price of the binary.
You are bickering for nothing.

Calm you autism, Stallman. I was obviously being sarcastic.

It was meant as an example of how the GPL is not a business unfirendly license; the $6,000,000,00 was just an example, it could have been anything else.

=BSDcuck detected!=
Enjoy doing it for free for Apple and Jewgle, retard.

Never stroked a single key on a BSD system.

Six figure salary.

Yeah, but because the Linux kernel isn't like GNU software, and is actually a collection of individual contributions licensed under GPL v2, you'd have to track down every single one of the original authors in order to re-license, which is next to impossible, and some authors care more about their software getting used by companies like google on Android, than users being free to really use the code on the machines they own.

I don't get it. Does, say, BSD forbid forking something that a corp decides to lock sources of? Isn't that what happened with OpenSolaris?

No, it's simply that you do not get the benefit of the work that company did and then locked away, while they get the benefit of the work you did. It's simple, if someone is going to fuck your wife, it better be because you're swingers (GPL), and not because you're so "free" that you invite strange men into your bedroom while they tell you to get the fuck out.

No, I get butthurt over corps profiteering from someone else's labour, even if I don't share it. I don't get why BSDfags need to go to flamewars with GNUfags and vice versa. The former got their own thing that they can share at a loss with corps with potential benefit of getting a dole, the latter can be NEETs hoping they wrecked their eyesight and spine for some greater good. As long as both forms of autism are possible to pursue I don't see a problem.