Licenses more free and restrictive than GPL?

GPLv3 is too permissive = not free enough. Specifically looking for a license that grants patent rights, selling rights, and requires explicit permission to use in project with profit to further freedom and liberty.

Other urls found in this thread:

hooktube.com/watch?v=BVkTmnJkAN8
cloudblogs.microsoft.com/microsoftsecure/2018/03/01/finfisher-exposed-a-researchers-tale-of-defeating-traps-tricks-and-complex-virtual-machines/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

You want to write proprietary software.

Can I replace minix in my cpu or modify the code with something else. No, because it's cuck license. Majority of people have to be cucked just because they made it close source + cuck license software to run their proprietary shit.

As much as I dislike it, forcing software to be non-commercial makes it non-free.

Why freedom of removing freedom to remove freedom from software users is non-free?

BSD or MIT.

You are the cancer that has killed Holla Forums

/thread

That's completely the opposite of what OP asked for, and it shows how desperate you faggots are to promote your cuckery.

This is contradictory.
ISC/MIT/BSD are more free, GPL, is as restrictive as traditional copyright, with the level of control over the source code it holds, the only step past it is proprietary where you define your own clauses.

...

hmm really makes you think

Cucked for developers not for users. GPL is cucked for users but not developers (still more cucked for devs than proprietary though).

You are free! Which is why we restricted your freedom in X Y Z way. To make sure you are free.

Freedom doesn't inherently mean, "if I can do it, then it must be freedom". If my factory is dumping industrial waste into the rivers, that is not a form of freedom. Just because there are restrictions regarding how I dispose my waste doesn't make me less free.

Likewise, distributing proprietary software is not a form of freedom. Restrictions that say "you are forbidden to fork this into proprietary software" doesn't make you less free.

What kind of newspeak is this?

Being a GPL developer is cucked by giving up control over your software.

This is still newspeak.

Yes it is

Yes it does.

Yes it does.

You are literally listing things that make you less free and saying its not.

...

Freedom stands for something greater than just the right to act however I choose—it also stands for securing to everyone an equal opportunity for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

To most reasonable people, freedom means more than just ‘free to do whatever I want’. Taken literally, that approach would produce anarchy—every man, woman, and child for himself or herself. Fortunately, none of us has to live that way (unless you’re reading this in Somalia or a similar disaster area).

Certainly freedom does mean the right to do as one pleases—to think, believe, speak, worship (or not worship), move about, gather, and generally act as you choose—but only until your choices start to infringe on another person’s freedom.

If by "equal opportunity" you mean a right to other peoples property you can fuck off.

Great! Welcome to libertarianism. Do whatever the fuck you want on your own property, with absolutely no right to anyone elses.

Absolute negative freedom, no positive freedom.

Cool strawman bro.

...

hooktube.com/watch?v=BVkTmnJkAN8

Oh the irony.

Another lolbert thread.

The irony in talking about slavery when what you advocate is that people give their work away for free, as if that somehow isn't a nightmare scenario. People may not like it but the modern capitalist world is the most fair playing ground, your life is only a nightmare if you choose it to be
You deserve it because you chose to live in a nightmare.

You're implying we should all be free to keep slaves. The GPL preserves the freedom of everyone, not just those who write the code.

Freedom can't be defended or tampered with, that's what makes it free. Even in a situation like preventing slavery, what you say you're doing is "fighting for freedom", which isn't inherently a bad thing, but it is still restrictive and goes against the idea of freedom. It's ironic to say you're defending freedom by taking it away from people. True freedom is true freedom, GPL faux freedom is just that, false freedom. There's no denying or debating that, what you should debate instead are your opinions on certain liberties but these GPL advocates don't, they conflate everything into one issue under the wrong name because it is adventitious for them to do so. It's a dishonest weasel tactic that seems to work against them.

I should have the ability to do whatever the fuck I want with what I buy. If you don't provide the source code so I can adapt the software to my needs, and let me use the software as I wish, you're ripping me, the user, off.
You don't see your furniture store owner getting all uppity when you decide to alter your furniture, do you, faggot? Free software works on the same principle, but for software.
A string of numbers (what software is) is non-excludable and non-rivalrous. You can't really sell it. It's especially not a sale if you keep strings attached to each copy you sell 'just license'. And even if it's proprietary, people can 'pirate' the fuck out of it so you don't earn money anyway.
You can fucking charge for free software. Just look at grsecurity and RedHat's business models.
Now fuck off and go sell 'just license' your proprietary crapware with strings attached elsewhere.

There's no reason to be so upset with me. Calm down and think about this reasonably before throwing a tantrum at nobody. I'll discuss it with you then.

Actually no, you don't have that right, unless you make a separate deal with the (prorietary) software vendor. Otherwise you have exactly one right: to not buy software from him, because you don't agree to his terms. But you most certainly don't have the right to dictate to him what terms he can choose to sell his software under. If he wants to sell only binaries and keep the source code under wraps, that's his right. He's the one making the investment and taking the risks, so he calls the shots. If you don't like that, don't buy his stuff, it's really that simple.

We don't believe freedom means "we can do everything". The end result of this kind of freedom is inherently nuclear winter.

I'm not part of your "we", you shouldn't speak for a group like that, use "I".

...

I'm all for unlimited negative freedom, but this commie faggot thinks he has a right to other peoples shit.

I think RedHat and Grsecurity examples are the exact opposite of what free software should look like. They write unattainable shitware to sell their useless certificates for technicians, just like Microsoft or Cisco or other proprietary corp does. What we need is a hardware company that will produce hardware with open specs/free firmware, a hardware that is not easily copied by chinks, something like free silicon, neither completely jewed off by Google or Intel because GPL, along with it all associated programmers would get their fair wages funded off sales profits.

At least redhat works when you install it. And will work for the next 10 years. Versus normal shit that breaks constantly and won't work in 6 months.

Can't additional clauses be added to beginning or the end of the GPL?

Kinda off-topic but "unlimited negative freedom" is impossible. You live on the planet with other people? And they do things that affect you all the time. Even just seeing another person sends photons to your eyes, and you didn't agree to see those photons, lol.

You are confused if you think GPL has anything to do with communism. GPL is all about freedom.

The communists think the same thing about communism

BUT ITS FREE GUYS

GPL doesn't restrict any freedom.

Except for all the things it does prevent vs the BSD.

GPL doesn't prevent anything that a user can do.

Right. So I want to give my friend a binary without the source as a user. Wait! Fucked by the GPL police.

Why do you conflate a distributor and a user?

This is what a dozen posts above miss. The GPL is about guaranteeing freedom for users (I can take the code, but am required to allow my users to do the same). BSD is about guaranteeing it for developers (I can take the code and fuck the users).

Your friend wouldn't sue you, so the license is irrelevant in this case.

...

You know that "users" are not programmers right. They don't give a shit if its GPL or not. Its the programmers that matter.

Users have all the same rights the developers do

It's the users that matter as long as the software is running on the user's computer. Software distributors should not restrict the user's freedom.

User's aren't always allowed to have access to the corresponding source code.

Neither are developers.

Giving someone a binary does not restrict their freedom at all. In fact by having the binary they are more free than not having it. They can do what they want with the binary.

Not the users of derivatives. I.e. BSD -> user vs BSD -> closed source derivative -> user.

The users have all the same rights as the BSD developer. A developer has no more right to source code than a user does.

Giving the user a binary without source restricts their freedom to control their own computing. By having the binary they are less free than by not having it. A binary without source code cannot be controlled by a user.

If the license allows it. That's not the case for most closed-source software. Usually you can't inspect or modify the binary, and in some cases can't even use it in nuclear weapons.

That's fine as long as the user is allowed access to the source code of the binary. If the user is forbidden the access, that is a restriction of the user's freedom.

I guess you are "less free" when you can play that new zelda game, vs the kid who has no choice if he wants to play it.

They can choose where to install the binary, they can choose to edit the binary. They can choose to do X Y Z with it.

Of course!

It is not a restrict of the users freedoms. They are just not being granted the freedom. For example if I give you an car, but say "you can't drive it past 10PM" you have more freedoms.

Users cannot practically study how a program works without access to the source code. The only work that can be done by studying a binary without the corresponding source code is trivial and is close to meaningless.

I guess reverse engineering malware is impossible then. No one can do that. Nope.

Users who are not granted the freedom to study the source code is restricted of the freedom to study the source code. Software freedom is always about the user and how the software distributor should not restrict the user.

Reverse engineering is totally impractical for users to modify. In the case of malware, the exact malware functions involved are always trivial. The same is true for DRM, the DRM functions are inherently trivial. The freedom to study and modify programs involves deeper level than trivial twiddling of bits.

This is where you are wrong. They have not been restricted. If I don't give you a car, I am not restricting your freedom to drive. Once you get a car you are free to do as you wish.

If you think reversing is as easy as reading even bad C++ code you should stfu. Notice he said "practically" you retard, not "theoretically".

Editing the code literally at all is impractical for users.

Both are impossible for "users".

Please don't conflate freedom and technical aptitude. Users do not need technical aptitude to have freedom. Freedom is a matter of the authority to control oneself. Software cannot be controlled without the authority to study the source code.

Users who are devs can read code, end-users can hire someone who can.

If technical aptitude is not required for freedom then the binary is all the same.

Everything the source does is found in the binary.

Ah so what you are saying is that developers are all that matter here. If the user can hire a professional to edit source code then they can hire a professional to reverse engineer a binary.

Do you remember, however, that your property is not a closed system, but we share the same air, water, etc.?

Then decide who owns the air and water and sell it like everything else.

You're still conflating freedom and technical aptitude. All the user needs is the authority to access the source code. Users who have that authority can go ask a helper for any kind of technical help.

No it doesn't. All that's copied over is the computer code logic. What's missing is the human readable hints that create a proper context of the logic. Without the source code, the context of the logic is completely missing. This is the reason why source code is critical for the control of the software.

Nobody owns the air and water. They are a shared resource.

Absolutely false. The source may contain for example false aliasing information the compiler naively didn't use and so this won't necessarily be in the binary.

You're either trolling or autistic. The cost for reversing anything non-trivial is astronomical, try to change anything in ICC for instance.

We've been saying again and again that reverse engineering a binary is impractical to modify. It doesn't matter if you invest billions into hiring multiple software development first studying the binary code, it still doesn't change the fact it is impractical to modify.

No they are asking to be given the source code by someone else. They don't have it.

If technical aptitude is all that matters then a binary does fine.

They can hire a professional to reverse engineer a binary.

The source is a specification for a binary. Everything the binary does is found in the binary. The fact that you don't have the source does not change this.

They shouldn't be.

Fuck I mixed up false dependencies with aliasing.

You are mixing up freedom and technical aptitude

Technical aptitude has zero bearing on the practicality of modifying a binary program without source code. A computer program without the source code can not be practically controlled by the user.

Right so a virus research phd and a normie who cant use a computer has no relationship to the ability to reverse engineer a binary. I'm sure that ones true.

Every instruction executed by the binary is executed because the user let it.

There is no freedom in modifying binary programs without access to the source code. There does not exist any amount of technical aptitude that can improve the practicality of modifying binary programs without access to the source code.

Okay so NES hacked roms don't exist. Sure thing.

Sure, but you have the freedom to edit the binary without the source.

A virus by its very nature is trivial in scope.

Users cannot practically control the binary without access to the source code. It is completely impractical no matter how many experts you put into it.

citation needed

cloudblogs.microsoft.com/microsoftsecure/2018/03/01/finfisher-exposed-a-researchers-tale-of-defeating-traps-tricks-and-complex-virtual-machines/

This is not trivial.

The user has full control over what the binary does on their computer.

Wrong.

Once again, matters of DRM locks, viruses and game trainers are inherently trivial in function. These are the practical limits of modifying binary programs. Doing software modification that's deeper than this level and without access to the source code is inherently impractical.

Wrong. See for example:

cloudblogs.microsoft.com/microsoftsecure/2018/03/01/finfisher-exposed-a-researchers-tale-of-defeating-traps-tricks-and-complex-virtual-machines/

Companies have lost the source code to their programs before and go along patching the binary.

Is this supposed to give me confidence that it is practical for anybody to modfiy binary software? This is software that was especially designed to be hidden. Once again, without access to the source code, software is completely impractical to modify.

The amount of work they can achieve in this method is also trivial. Which is exactly my point.

Of course not. But its not practical for anybody to modify source either.

If they are not programmers its not practical to modify either.

Not true at all, they can edit in to the symbol table and call out to another library with whole new code for example.

Right so the freedom is too expensive so it does not count

Source code is an inherent necessity to control the software. Modifying programs involves more than repositioning the pointers. Making pointers point to other things in a binary program is inherently trivial.


I've been saying that for the user to have freedom to control the software, users must have access to the source code. The reason why they don't have it is because the distribute chooses to encourage the user to install the binary while simultaneously witholding authority to access the source code.

Of course! You need to decide if you run it. Which the user does.

Everything about the binary that can be changed in source can be changed by editing the binary.

Ah so editing binaries to do new things is easy.

They can change all the things about the binary that they can change with the source. They have no less control.

They have full control over the binary though.

No need to bring "authority" into this. They don't have the source, its that simple. If they did they could do what they want with it.

We have to agree to disagree. You honestly believe that when a user installs a binary program, that user can practically control it. The rest of the world cannot agree.

They have control over running it. They don't have control the changing of it though. A user cant change what a program does even if you give them the source though. They are a user not a developer.

Once again, you are conflating freedom and technical aptitude. If I buy a wooden cabinet and I choose to add some shelves, I don't need to ask anybody's permission to add some shelves. Likewise I don't need any kind of carpentry skill to get it done. When I have freedom, then it is my responsibility to ask anybody with the skills to advise me and get the work done.

You accuse me of doing it but you do it over and over. A user can reverse engineer a binary if they have the skills.

Nor reverse engineer a binary.

For any non trivial changes you need skill.

Like editing a binary.

Freedom is about the authority to self-control, not technical aptitude. We're saying it is completely impractical for users (even with the support of teams of experts) to control software without access to source code. You will not find any computer academic around who will support your assertion that it is practical for any user to reverse engineer a binary program to control it. Not even professional software reverse engineers will support this assertion.

Agreed!

Agreed! And source code won't help them either. If they are able to modify the source code then they are actually developers.

Except people make complex modifications to binaries all the time. Its a fucking job, people even do it as a hobby.

Nor will any user be able to edit the source the way they want non trivially if they had it. They can still control running it though.

No but a professional reverse engineer could reverse engineer it.

Users do not have to be developers to modify source code.

No. They just have to have all the same skills. Just like the don't have to be reverse engineering professionals, they just have to have the same skills.

Skill and freedom are not the same thing. It is possible for a user who has freedom to also have absolutely zero skill.

Which is what I have been saying the whole time. The user has the freedom to modify the software / binary. Just not the skill.

But you just wrote this and now you're saying the exact opposite?

What is opposite about that? You have to have the skills of a developer to be able to develop software. No one is stopping you though.

The difficulty of modifying a binary is astronomically higher than modifying the source code to achieve the same goal, and you quickly reach the point where binary modifications become impractical. This is orthogonal to the aptitude of the user.
But the libertarian itt essentially argues that how free the common man is in practice does not matter, as long as there is no law of nature, or more often than not governmental law that forbids something.

Their delusions is derived from the wrong belief that they take as axiomatic, that free will axists and that the world is just. Just take the ridiculous argument that using proprietary software makes you more free, the same could be said about some plantation that slave that is more free as a slave because at least he gets food and otherwise he would starve. We in the civilized world are not all sociopaths and a thing called human rights.
The reason for their cryptoreligion is that they want to feel righteos and "proud" of having been lucky in the lottery life, and that they "deserve" everything they have and they obviuosly worked very hard for it while simultanously not having to feel any compassion towards the unfortunate by blaming them for their ill fate and kicking them while they are down. This seems to be a very popular belief, especially in the US, which is not surprising given how western states are more and more becoming oligarchies, led by the US, and the few rich are the only ones to ultimately profit from complete lack of restrictions so that they can steal the freedom of everyone else for themselves, just like proprietary software vendors take away freedom from the user to increase their power.

Don't forget that slavery is actually freedom because it's theoretically possible for a slave to run away from his master and amass an army to destroy the master.

If I can't do as I wish with the copy I buy, then they're ripping me off. It's like buying furniture you can't paint/varnish/restore/etc. i.e. it's not buying if it's 'just licensed' with strings attached.
The source code issue is "solved" by people steering clear of software which isn't free (i.e. Libre). However, if you can't keep strings attached to software, it makes little sense to keep the source to yourself.
Don't worry, regardless of what you pay he's not actually selling you a copy, only 'just licensing' it.
If copycancer were gone, he wouldn't be able to dictate his terms, other than withholding the source code.

was a knee-jerk reaction from hearing for the billionth time the publishing kikes' argument that you can't make money from creative works without copyright. It's especially bad because the kikes insist the goal of copyright is earning right holders most of the time not the authors money, when in fact it's supposed to improve the corpus of human knowledge (which it actually hinders), and making money from royalties is a merely a means to that end.
Point is, proprietary licensing is predominant because people can't legally copy the software. If copyright is gone, there's pretty much no reason to make software proprietary.
The only argument I've ever found against free software is someone forking your project, replacing the logos and attribution, and accusing the original author of being the rip-off. But that would fall under plagiarism (which anyone with a brain is opposed to).