Why isn't there a group of people who take lots of permissive-licensed projects (such as BSDs, browsers...

Why isn't there a group of people who take lots of permissive-licensed projects (such as BSDs, browsers, and other stuff like that) and relicense them as GPLv3 or AGPL? They could hijack the codebase and slowly start building new features that the cuck licensed originals wouldn't be able to take back.

Other urls found in this thread:

gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_BSD_operating_systems#General_information
freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license.html
gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html
gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesCompatMean
cs.vu.nl/~ast/intel/
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/michail-bakunin-man-society-and-freedom
networkworld.com/article/2900305/opensource-subnet/stallman-joins-the-internet-talks-net-neutrality-patents-and-more.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

You don't seem to understand what the permissive licenses you're referring to allow you to do.

They allow you to relicense.

No, they do not.

Yes they do you fucking idiot.
gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_BSD_operating_systems#General_information
Most of these BSDs have licenses that are fully GPLv3 compatible. In fact, some of them have even been released with a GPL license at some point.

For the BSD license, section 7 of the GPL says that those additional terms are allowed to be added. Keep in mind that you can not remove the BSD license text from the file though.
The GPL license isn't compatible with the old BSD license btw

So you made your fork, then what happens?
Basically, there's a > 99% chance you are ignored completely, and a < 1% chance that you were a potentially good contributor and are now considered a social pariah for causing pointless drama.

Communists go oink oink in >>>Holla Forums

No, they don't, you fucking idiot. Look at the FreeBSD license.

freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license.html

It gives you permission to redistribute, use, and modify the software, subject to the given restrictions. That's it. Do you see relicense in there, you cumsucking ape?

Now, if you add to a BSD-licensed piece of software, you can license your own contribution to it however you want. For example, if I take a piece of BSD-licensed software, and I add a command line option "-op" which prints "is a nullo with a gaped asshole", and I license that snippet of code under the GPL, then the codebase is now BSD+GPL. But the original code is not relicensed.

Go ahead: take a piece of BSD-licensed code, make absolutely no changes to it, "relicense" it under the GPL, and try to take someone to court for using it only under the terms of the BSD license. You'll fail.

lmao you fucking retard. I never said shit about relicensing existing BSD code and then IMMEDIATELY suing anyone using it.
From the OP (OP)
Fucking kill yourself.


Who the hell is the end user of a BSD? DEVELOPERS, by and large. Both of your statements are false on their own, and also artificially separate. Many developers AND end users prefer GPL because it protects them from corporations and increases freedom. As well, developers and end users use BSD because it is different and superior in some ways to Linux. Many people would like to have a BSD that is GPL licensed. Look at how the lack of GPL is putting the BSD devs into contortions, creating Linux compatibility layers to bring in AMDGPU code. There's a use-case right there.

Basically this. The OP implies that people who use GPL3 are allergic to lesser free licenses when that's simply not true. A free license is a free license, and there are plenty of use cases for simpler licenses than the GPL3 even among people who tote the GPL3, like with libraries and config files. In the same way that you don't use a software license for, say, artwork, you don't use a certain license if it's malapropos--whether that's GPL or MIT or whatever is conditional.

Plus, it's not pragmatic. Why would you needlessly alienate yourself and antagonize the authors of a piece of free software just because your agenda is slightly different? It's so petty.

Not all software needs the GPL to be protected from being stolen from public domain. In some cases, it's more cumbersome to use the GPL than to just use a more simple one. Frankly, the issue is more of a practical one than ethical. The ethical part is taken care of since, firstly, some of the protections of the GPL are redundant in SOME use cases, and, secondly, it's all free software. Even the FSF doesn't believe in GPL exclusivity. Take a look: gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html

This anti-permissive license mindset is why other people in the free world outside of the GPL camp hate us. It's not only harmful to ourselves on a technical scale, because we can't collaborate with them, it hurts our reputation tremendously by perpetuating this "GPL zealot" stereotype.

However, this thing objectively does happen to BSDs. Permissive licenses like LGPL do have a place for things that make sense, like libraries. However, BSD is an OS.

>Even the FSF doesn't believe in GPL exclusivity. Take a look: gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html
I've read Stallman's book, I know what the FSF stances are. However, Stallman and the FSF are essentially opportunist in many respects. The reason Stallman doesn't call for 100% copyleft or even more extreme licenses is simply that he knows they wouldn't get popular and wouldn't be "pragmatic." However, the GPL is still a great start, and it would be a positive thing to piss off the permissive license zealots, because it would force people to debate the issue and really consider how free their code is. You don't get anywhere by avoiding hurting people's feelings.

Holy shit, you're stupid. You said:


The answer is because you cannot relicense them, you fucking retard.

It doesn't matter whether you try to relicense them
or wait 10 years.

You can license your own additions to a BSD-licensed program however you want.

You cannot relicense BSD code unless you are the copyright holder.

Learn to read, you insufferable cunt.

When you change it, you can slap a GPL on top. Anyone who wants the original code without GPL can still go to the BSD-licensed repo, obviously. But you straight-up are able to put the GPL onto BSD-licensed code as long as you abide by the BSD license. Not my fault you're autistically focusing on the wording when the meaning of what I said is clear.

Well, not to stick my head in between what seems to be a pretty heated flame war, but technically you can relicense BSD software if we're talking about two-clause or three-clause. Part of the obnoxious thing about the umbrella "BSD" license is that its variants are much more different from eachother in their implications than even GPL2 and GPL3. Combined with the fact that there are more variations is bound to lead to some mix-ups. The scuffle with OpenBSD and Linux developers relicensing to GPL3 was that the code they were appropriating was clause-4 and thus not GPL-compatible. With that in mind, while it is technically possible to relicense two-clause and three-clause, that in itself isn't really enforceable since anyone who took your code could just relicense it under BSD. Obviously, if you were to make GPL additions to the codebase, that's a whole different ballpark, but not a very wise decision. Why? Because it's basically up to you to maintain and contribute to that codebase, now. Not to mention, your fork would be very controversial in its formative stages. That's kind of what happened with Mplayer2, which was, to be fair, quite shitty. But from the ashes of Mplayer2 came Mpv. So, yeah. I guess that answers the OP, doesn't it? In that people have forked BSD code and made a piece of GPL software out of it. Quite rude, in my opinion, and kind of pointless, though, in most cases.

You know, the more I read your posts, the more I understand why everyone keeps calling us "GPL zealots". For the record, I understand what you mean. I bet it's an awful feeling to wake up one day and see that your code has been stolen from you by some corporate hawk or whatever, and I assure you that I'm not one of those people that thinks free software can coexist with proprietary--that would be absolutely stupid; but my point is that using a more copycenter (although there's no such thing as true copycenter, in my opinion) license doesn't necessarily make you vulnerable to copyrights and patents. Not all software is created equal. It's not that using a more permissive license is the kind of convenience you would take that would put you at risk, and I get why you would rather not bask in the altruism of looming corporate entities, but the fact is that using a permissive license for certain kind of things doesn't actually put you at any risk.

I know that.

...

I should point out that IME has only been officially MINIX based since very recently. Obviously I know we all like to shit on Tanenbaum for being the smug BSD cuck that he is, but the fact that MINIX lent itself to that kind of use means practically nothing. Ultimately, Intel is the perpetrator in this issue, and they would have and DID create IME regardless of whether MINIX factored in or not. And as for your point about BSD, that's not true. The different BSD licenses actually vary quite greatly as to whether they can be relicensed or not.

gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesCompatMean
FSF says BSD is legally GPL compatible, which is good enough for me.

The vast,
VAST
majority of developers are developing proprietary commercial software, where a single line of GPL code in the wrong place could destroy an entire business. You are so out of touch it is sad. Take Stallman's circumcised 3 inch monster kike cock out of your mouth for a second and finish your degree, comrade, so you can see the reality of software development outside of the ivory tower.


Retard. You aren't fooling anybody.

Because Linux kernel is the only thing licensed under GPL that sane people are willing to use, and even then it's under v2. Good luck finding a single standardized piece of software licensed under General Communis License.

The whole concept of software freedom is for cuckolds. Only a cuck would want to make it possible for other people to take their code and use it however they want. Chads do proprietary software.

So? That's their job. Does your boss own you? Does he dictate your own preferences?
Also, the GPL license has ironically contributed GREATLY to the success of Linux and other GPL projects with corporations. Private businesses understand that if they are forced to work on and use open source projects, that copyleft prevents competitors from taking their own expensive contributions and refusing to collaborate back. Linux is everywhere because of the GPL.


weak troll

Compatibility is not relicensing. The BSD-licensed code in a BSD+GPL mixed-license project remains under the BSD license.

Yes, but the combination is GPL.

I don't deny that. It certainly wasn't what Tanenbaum intended for MINIX, though. As it happens to be, BSD licenses and other permissives allow for freely-developed software to be used to subjugate the user by inserting malicious functionality. That is sickening.
OP's solution is dumb, however. He should read the documentation on the license and look for alternative solutions. Clear now?

Yes, but if you receive the code for the combination, then delete the GPLed parts of the code, what's left is BSD licensed.

Isn't LGPL the same in terms of freedoms as MIT or BSD only better written (because it's written by actual lawyers)? If so, can you use it for software or is it for libraries only?

No, LGPL is just permissive about what you can link to it. LGPL code modifications still must be redistributed.

Actually, Tanenbaum sent Intel a letter thanking them.
cs.vu.nl/~ast/intel/

which would be swiss cheese by then.

I already saw that article. Here's another quote from it:
You shouldn't be be disingenuous just because he's a Jew. Moreover, if you are going to be disingenuous about this, don't post the article and make it easy for me to copy-paste a direct rebuttal.
forget the above paragraph if you're not the guy who I was responding to
My thoughts upon reading it are that he's a polite and naive man who didn't want to bitterly insult Intel when he could do nothing to them and who doesn't realize what's contradictory about his stance on software freedom if he considers freedom in terms of his own immediate circumstances to be important.

Which has nothing to do with what we're talking about, namely whether BSD-licensed code can be relicensed under the GPL.

Unfortunately, OP started his post with this stupid misunderstanding, so we got sidetracked by it instead of being able to concentrate on the other stupid stuff in his post.

No such thing. If you don't want to/can't comply with the license you just remove the GPL code.
but it is (pic)

no it cannot. You just fucking remove the infringing code.

You can't relicense BSD code; it will always stay that way. However, you can fork it and release your improvements under a copyleft license.

See this sort of GPL zealotry is why I use MIT and CC0 for my code. You can call me a cuck, that insult rolls off me like water off a duck's ass.

In my mind it's very simple: GPL tries to secure the freedom of users by taking away the freedom of developers. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and altruism, and taking offense on other people's behalf, and doing favors for people who never asked you to, etc.

If users don't use my original "cuck" licensed software but instead use a "stolen" non-free fork of it, then I as a dev have no moral obligation to protect their freedoms and the users can go fuck themselves because they chose the wrong distro and never cared enough to choose the right one. My fellow dev's freedoms shall not be infringed for the convenience of clueless users.

I remember Creative Commons recommending not to use CC0 for software and GNU recommends using Apache v2.0 over MIT. Any idea why?

I know about CC0, two reasons:
1. It was never intended to be used for code by CC therefore the legalese may not be "optimal".
2. CC0 doesn't grant patents which made the open-source people freak out about patent trolls not granting patents for a public domain dedication (which seems absurd but IANAL).

I do admit that Unlicense is probably a better choice than CC0 for the reasons above.

Freedom to do what, exactly? To take away the freedom of users AND OTHER DEVELOPERS. As a developer, I want my code and my freedom protected from greedy corporations and random assholes.

Their fork doesn't belong to you, so it's not your call whether or not they take away freedoms. Keep your own project free and let users know that the fork isn't free. From then on it's the users choice. And if they choose the non-free fork there's two possibilities: 1) fuck them because they're stupid. 2) fuck you because your original version is inferior to the fork.

Typical gnussr ideologue

It's based on my work, so it sure as hell doesn't exclusively "belong" to them.

But it literally is my call. I decide my licensing. Deal with it.

Anarkiddies, when will they learn?

You group using my software faggot?

If you forgive me for going philosophical (reddit spacing included):

Is it greed when people take something that you've given freely but they don't want to give anything back?

Is it NOT greed when you want to force people to give something they don't want to give freely?

And here we return to the thread's topic: I decide my licensing too, and it's MIT/CC0. Meaning that if you want to relicense my stuff under GPL I'll call your fork anti-freedom, which it is. Deal with it.

Yes, it is greed. Thankfully the GPL license does not require you to give anything back to the person who gave it to you. You are free to make change that you see fit and even give them to other people. In that case you are still not required to give anything back to the creator.
It is greedy to force other people to give you something they don't want to. In the case that someone is hoarding all the changes to himself, the GPL does not impose any burden in giving all his super cool changes back to the creator, no matter how cool the creator thinks the changes are. If people are distributing the program to someone else, they would be forced to give away the source which the may not want to do.

You don't HAVE to give ANYTHING back TO ANYONE if you fork GPL software. You can keep your shit to yourself.
The only thing the GPL asks for is that you provide source code upon distribution, which is not unreasonable, given that you stand to win nothing from withholding it (users can 'steal' your shit proprietary or not).

Who cares? It's in my interest to force people to share their code.

Good. I hope that the controversy will force people to consider what freedom really means.

Permissive licenses are the libertarians of licenses. They pretend to be against the poz while tolerating its spread with their "they should be free to be pozzed as long as I'm free not to."

GPL on the other hand is completely against Jewish subversion of these programs' userbases by making the copyleft code stay copyleft instead of the obvious jew takes code, pays pajeet to write some new features that everyone will love, then makes it proprietary so that the goyim pay for their proprietary program instead of the original free version. Ironically, there is nothing communist (Jewish) about the GPL despite being a kike's idea.

Intellectual property is cancer anyway. Nobody should make a living off of a single work.

Enjoy your BSD intel ME hardware and MIT smartphones then.
I'm sure you have no problem that intel, Samsung or google or any megacorps to owns what you buy after all communism is about them and you owning the same shit (except you don't own anything).

more like nobody should make a living by being a rent-seeking parasite.

someone pointing out that your solution doesn't work =/= shilling for the other side

pic related
How about you go read what anarchists have actually said instead of spewing your fabricated Leninist propaganda?
Here's a short start to Bakunin, a 10 pager: theanarchistlibrary.org/library/michail-bakunin-man-society-and-freedom
Bakunin would have liked the GPL.

Gay.

Literally the only tranny I've ever seen that doens't know how to suck dick.

user, where do you think you are?

its almost as if wording is the most important thing when it comes to legal documentation such as software licensing

I can kinda see your mistake user but seriously Stallman is not even close to talking about what you think he is.

I don't claim that Stallman is an anarchist - he has specifically claimed that he is not*.
networkworld.com/article/2900305/opensource-subnet/stallman-joins-the-internet-talks-net-neutrality-patents-and-more.html
Anarchists certainly don't prefer BSDs and other permissive licenses to the GPL like the tankie who I quoted claims, however. Anarchists are even more consistent versions of Stallman (reciprocal freedom in all of society) + a cavalier attitude towards violence (most of them, although a few are pacifistic and others only support destruction of property; it's been a long-standing debate).
*he apparently does have a soft spot for Emma Goldman, a famous anarchist, labor activist, and feminist (although she called for equality, unlike modern feminists) of early 20th century America

...

Protip: distributing proprietary software is harmful the freedom of the users. The GPL exists so that harmful people, i.e. people who distribute proprietary software, aren't allowed to fork the licensed software into software that harms the user's freedom.

The fallacy is called "No True Scotsman", and it has nothing to do with what I said. An example of this fallacy:
It would be a No True Scotsman if Stallman called himself an anarchist and I asserted that he wasn't because real anarchists support x and he doesn't. Where did I do that? I didn't.
Read my post again.

...

...

Freedom Ain’t free.
The tree of liberty and freedom gotta be litterd with the blood of Google. Microsoft WINDOWS 10 aka “Wangblows” is not my oberating sysdem. it is nonfree and probbaly botnet as well :DD. GNU and linux not linux and SYSTEMD ok. praise Stallman.

I'm all for promoting freedoms that are more essential than other freedoms. I believe that encouraging users to accept proprietary software is as harmful as encouraging users to accept a punch in the face; just because there are people who are happy to accept your punch doesn't mean that I consider your actions to benefit the freedom of society.

Proprietary software is immoral on the grounds that the users of proprietary software are encouraged to live their lives on their computers as helpless and divided servants to the owners of the proprietary software; users who choose proprietary software cannot live in freedom. Publishers who promote and encourage users to accept the terms of proprietary software are the people who are immoral.

The that I like to put it is this:
with permissively licensed software, nobody can assume by default that the software is free software, you have to examine each individual title to ensure it is free software.

No I mean free and freedom are not what you think they are. It's a super common mistake particularly for ideologues who aren't known for their curiosity or rigor.

Great rebuttal there buddy. That is certainly an argument.

I need to make an argument that these two things are completely different?

Welcome to the world of law.

OP should make distro called GNU/Faggux.

GPL is socialist, MIT is libertarian.
Currently, more people are running free socialist software on their computer than free libertarian software, and the former is often more secure, advanced and documented than the latter.
/liberty/ BTFO.

Drink more Stall-man cum faggot.

Actually I just realized most of us run ancap software thanks to Tenenbaum, and it just goes to show that you get nothing in return when the one of the biggest CPU maker in the world don't even bother to respect your labor by crediting you in their manuals (thus infringing the BSD license).

...

freedom means being free from having someone's brand of "freedom" being imposed on onesself

So being a literal slave is true freedom, because nobody is claiming you fall under their definition of "free."

I support GPL, but calling "BSD" meme licence slave labour is plain stupid. Most of the FOSS developers make the program for themselves and make available for free even if their time wasn't absolutely free. It's a personal decision, but copyleft is smarter way to release software if it's larger.

So chugging down Steve Ballmer's cum is freedom?
He's not imposing any definition of freedom on you! Would you look at that! Freedom from freedom!
Think of it, the endless reams of freedom from freedom when your MicroGoogleApple(R) brain-implanted chip makes you work forever and a day to make 1 little bit more of a computerized currency for the computerized avatars of long-dead stockholders! It's so meaningful and fulfilling!
Good thing you'll have never submitted to a definition of freedom made by that commiecuck Stallman and have therefore been free for the past 3 million years of hard work! War is peace, Freedom is slavery, Ignorance is strength!

That's not what true freedom is at all

"where there is no law, there is no freedom" - John Locke

>where there is no , there is no freedom
hmm really activates those almonds