Defend BSD licenses

cs.vu.nl/~ast/intel/

How muck cuckness is in Yous? Using your work, not giving you any credit, nothing, just a huge corporate dick in your ass and life-long burden for enslaving computing for at least decade or so.

Attached: cuck-tan.png (300x233, 53.22K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=kXwhaTpa3j4

that's the problem with cucks, they want to know when their wife gets fucked

old news

They only thing that might be defensible in the BSD is....
Actually I don't have anything that comes to mind.

You're confusing some rich academic crying over not getting a thank you note and pathetic people who literally work for positive social feedback.

getting really tired of your shit

Can you apply LGPL to any piece of software or is it exclusive to libraries?

I was just thinking about this today. If they used GPL code we the users could pressure Intel by suing them to release the code which would help us reverse engineer (in private) and completely disable the botnet. It is not just some academic corporate cocksucker that got cucked, we all did. Serves me right for buying Intel. Can't wait for some CPU based on RISC-V. Where are chinks when you need them?

Can FSF and "relicensing to future versions" bullshit be removed from the GPL? If not, then cry me a river.

Licenses are just (digital) pieces of paper that mean nothing if you lack power to enforce them.


Selling emulator handhelds chock full of GPL- and CCNA-licensed code (and proprietary game ROMs), without giving a fuck about your ideas about copyright.

Yea we should just give up and stop trying. Embracing the cuck state because surely our corporate overlords will be good masters. I hate this defeatist outlook.

You certainly shouldn't wage war on battlefield chosen by your enemies.
Write good code and teach everyone why closed code is bad. This is where corps have nothing to offer. This is how you win.

What if I am using a library that is released under a non-GPL compatible license?

That's exactly why FSF and EFF etc exist.
But yeah, in some cases it's certainly true, I can't imagine anyone suing chinks.

Where does it say not for corporate use? Do any of these fag licenses say anything about not allowing certain companies/states to use the code?
Yeah thought so.

GPL requires you to share the source of changes you made.
Companies/states can ignore this and keep changes to themselves, because they have army of lawyers/pay judge's wages.
So, in practice, when it comes to big guys, GPL is the same as BSD, only spread over more pages.

t. cuck

Wrong. You only have to share the source to people who you distribute it to.
Don't want to share the source? Don't share the binary.

Any piece of software.


That post was vague enough to still be correct, just ambiguous.

I've made changes to KeePassXC to improve performance/security of my system and yet I don't have to share those improvements with anyone.

It doesn't fucking matter. The entire license argument is drain circling stupidity.

Tanenbaum is an academic, his paycheck is always provided by academia. Notice how the two big permissive licenses (BSD and MIT) are named after universities? That's no coincidence.


Correct. A company could use a GP-licensed program internally, make all the changes they want and not share any of them. The point of Free Software is freedom for the user, but if you don't give the software to anyone, then there are no other users.

The difference between copyleft and permissive only comes into play when a company want to use the software in a product they give or sell to customers.

Lmao

...

If you are so concerned about compensation then why are you even involved in FOSS?

If Microsoft or Intel takes your GPL code what are you going to do about it? Absolutely nothing.

The only thing that could affect them would be an all-out war.

They have a policy against it or simply will release their code, if they can see some money from it.

youtube.com/watch?v=kXwhaTpa3j4

My Ma always says, "Locks only keep out honest thieves." Not to say you shouldn't lock your doors, but if someone wants to break in and rob you blind, a lock ain't going to save you. Don't get me wrong, I like the BSD license, and I think projects like BSD and MINIX deserve to exist (even if they didn't, or were GPL'd tomorrow the (theoretical) free market of ideas would spawn another OS that fills the void of "Free Software but not GPL" in lieu of them) but it's not a bad idea to step back and realize that unless the FSF or EFF has a rainy day shitkicker fund and a retainer of top-tier lawyers, software licenses are really a gentleman's agreement, even the GPL.

Attached: 1518127499853.jpg (1600x1067, 133.7K)

Lets say I steal a good sum of GPL'ed code and integrated that into my proprietary program. How can someone effectively prove that I indeed stole GPL'ed code? Were there any case a court ordered a developer to reveal his source code to the jury for checking any presence of GPL code?