The best software license

Probably, but
>work with a proprietary product at work
>start developing a FOSS alternative anonymously in spare time
>a developer from the makers of said proprietary product starts following the GitHub for the project

Attached: suspicious-man-working-computer-looking-screen-95816346.jpg (240x160, 7K)

Yes

Unlicense

Attached: PD-icon-black.svg.png (140x140, 5K)

This isn't the bsd thread.

Wrong.
This is and unlike your shitty legalese infested shit license, I can post the entire thing within a single post.

Version 2, December 2004

Copyright (C) 2004 Sam Hocevar

Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim or modified
copies of this license document, and changing it is allowed as long
as the name is changed.

DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION

0. You just DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO.

Attached: WTFPL.png (297x215, 8K)

Permissive licenses have all the problem that everyone can turn it proprietary. We call these licenses cuck licenses.

>More restrictions is more freedom
Spoken like a true cuck.

Propriety software usually has more restrictions than free software, senpai.

Attached: wtfpl.jpg (1280x616, 150K)

>"no more restrictions" is a restriction, restricting my freedom

Attached: 1522419278562.jpg (1129x1200, 118K)

Less restrictions is best.
It's why WTFPL is the best.
>bbbut someone might use the code
I know.
>bbut they might put it in a product they sell
I know.
>bbbut they might not return the code to you
I know and I don't care.

Why do you care?

>Shitloads of restrictions on how, when, why and who can use the software
>bbut GPL isn't restrictive!

kek

>The best software license.
BSD, MIT, GPL1 and 2 and proprietary.
GPL3 is garbage

to have freedom you need a law dregree:

gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html

Attached: loll.jpg (165x115, 6K)

what if i had the less restriction to be a tyranical government and oppress you, what would be sweet right?

>whataboutisms
We're talking about software, idiot.

kek
pls

Shame on everyone who took the bait. There is no universally best license. Even rms agrees it is so.

Attached: 1434494143548.gif (400x400, 912K)

MPL is better. A license shouldn't be viral, but FOSS shouldn't be used against hackers.

Pic unrelated.

I wonder who could be behind this thread...

Attached: 1517207631469.png (501x585, 10K)

Attached: 1437659767015.jpg (412x398, 86K)

The eternal zypperhead strikes again!

it's lefitist shit
libertarian licenses are better and are actual freedom

GPL is cancer just use MIT or BSD or even Apache

Which came first, the brain damage or the Jow Forums?

BSD shills like to blame legal trouble for the fact BSD is languishing on the scrapheap of irrelevant software, but deep down inside they know the problem is the cuck license.

>The problem I see with an OS that is BSD or GPL is the forking. It fragments, it dissipates energy.

Greentexted by error

>literally working for free and never seen any fork or contribution
>libertarian

LICENSE
Everyone is permitted to copy, modify and distribute this source code as long as this exact license is included.
Distributions of modified source code must have a new project name.
Distributing binaries of this code without including the accompanying source code is prohibited.
This software comes with no warranty.

Eben Moglen just BTFO'd

>not NO WARRANTY

Attached: inane.jpg (480x451, 57K)

>develop operating system
>it becomes the most popular proprietery system on earth, powering backdoors in all Intel chips
>because I picked the BSD license

Same cuck license, different color.

Attached: 220px-Andrew_S._Tanenbaum_2012.jpg (220x289, 12K)

>Your Software is used by millions
>So you're a cuck
Jealousy much?

Pretty much this, thse poster is angry that their software will never be 'stolen' so they wrap it in lot of restrictions that way they can claim the reason it wasn't 'stolen' was due to the restrictions, not due to the quality and purpose of the code.
Much the same as a hamgalaxy using an anti-rape device.

>>because I picked the BSD license
Intel managed to broke even the BSD license too.

Attached: froggo.gif (487x560, 898K)

When I pick a free software license, I obviously want that my program will be free software. I don't want it to be used as proprietary software that restricts users.

>implying GPL isn't used as BSD countless times

WTFPL is better. It is shoter.

...

Apache 2.0 is love.

GPL restricts users more than any other license.
Want good ZFS on Linux - Nooope, GPL forbids it - even if the user wants it.

This

Best for theft.

GPL zealots are in fact theives they claim to protect against.
ONLY GPL zealots have ever stolen BSD software and wrapped it in their own license.
undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20070913014315

>stolen
Lmao, Apple 'stole' your whole operating system.

>only gpl people took bsd code
apple copied bsd and changed license
sony copied bsd andschanged license
most modems are copied from bsd

>le steal meme
nigga if you want proprietary software, don't use a free license like bsd or gpl
how retarded are you

Apple also gave the code back
Sony also gave the code back
Most modems are either VXWorks or Linux 2.6/3.0 due to Broadcom.

So explain again how BSD is a 'cuck license'
No brevity, explain it well or relinquish the claim.

>gave code back
please point me to playstations kernel source

I don't want to know how many times bsd gets raped on a daily basis by allowing binary only distribution.

Lawyers say no apparently.

>develop free software
>use permissive license
>company comes along, adds botnet, releases it binary only, becomes popular
>you lay down, try not to cry
>think of all the users who are restricted and spied on using your software right now
>cry anyway

Communism: The License

You'd be shot, retard.

Edgy teenager: (You)

RMS recommends it for small programs, scripts etc where copyleft isn't necessary and Apache provides basic law protection. I put all my perl and ruby programs on shithub under Apache, but the large projects are GPLv3+.

>Upset that people are using a better version of the software and not your bad version.
>wahhh the market is unfair!

In case someone new to the topic is interested, here an overview on most free licenses im human language. gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
(BSD, etc included)

*** WARNING ***
This software has the GPLv3+Mom license.

All the clauses under the GPLv3 apply plus this extra clause:

If you do not comply with any of the GPLv3 clauses your mother will _die_ in her sleep tonight.

***YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED***

all open source license are good

Attached: 215679.jpg (898x628, 103K)

t. BSD cuck zealot

Nope.
BSD is less restricting than GPL cuckoldry, but it's no WTFPL.

>make software
>use BSD license to share it with everyone
>someone takes your software, makes it proprietary and sells it for lots of money
>doesn't share back his modifications
>nobody uses your software
>you got cucked

>make software
>use GPL license to share it with everyone
>people modify it and sends you the modifications
>your software improves
>people use it
>you didn't get cucked

Except those situations in reality are actually reversed.

GPL zealots just find BSD licensed code and wrap GPL around it since they can't actually made good software.
BSD zealots just keep writing good software and don't give any shits about what other people are doing.

Friendly reminder that with GPL the developers still own the code, with MIT/BSD/WTFPL you dont.

Is for because of twisted logic lime yours that we suspect companies actually pay assholes on the internet to spread lies about the GPL.

imagine being so much of a slave that you believe legal restrictions are freedom

>>people modify it and sends you the modifications
Sometimes I think people seriously make this assumption. Like do ya'll forget that people can take GPl software, incorperate it into their product, sell that product, and contribute nothing back.

The GPL does absolutely nothing to prevent the exact situation people criticize BSD for. At the end of the day you can't force anyone to contribute code or money to your project. At the end of the day when you release OSS you're giving your project away to the public to take advantage of. Why GPL users try to delude themselves is beyond me, why they get angry when people find something useful and make something on top of it, is crazy.

The GPL only forces you to release your changes, and even then it's only on demand. If you make no changes then there's nothing to contribute but the public, including companies, still get the benefits of the free labor, they can still legally make profit while you get nothing.

GPL advocates must be in an eternal state of buttmad after tricking themselves that the GPL is somehow not a cuck license, and then getting cucked by companies FOR FREE.

The whole thing seems like 1 big joke made up by lawyers just to laugh at more than confused code monkeys.

>twisted logic lime
Is this a new Mountain Dew flavor? Trying to comprehend all the clauses of the GPL must have fried your brain.

>Why GPL users try to delude themselves is beyond me, why they get angry when people find something useful and make something on top of it, is crazy.
I've thought about it now.
Selfishness and jealousy.
Fear of competition, contempt directed at those who improve upon existing foundations.
Vanity.
Plenty of things it could be, probably all and more.

Ironically, or maybe intentionally, these types of people do nothing other than stifle their own goals. They say they have an ideal but don't actually like it when they see it. Disgusting. I feel bad for the other types in field who are lumped together with the likes of them.

Attached: 1512941443968.png (880x860, 1.5M)

Lawyers are cancer.

the license prevents you from close sourcing it though.

There is 1 license I value.
ISC License (ISC)

Copyright

Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.

>GPLets think that text on a screen is going to prevent anything
KEKATS

I guess all projects in violation of the license and lands outside of jurisdiction just don't exist.

The license can't prevent anything and this is evident in practice.

GPL violations aren't a joke and will cost you a lot of money if you make one.

Imagine being such a cuck that you let other companies put your code behind a paywall
Imagine being such a cuck that you renounce to freedom even to your own code
Imagine being such a cuck that you let your code get crippled by a bugfix because that bugfix became proprietary
Imagine being such a cuck that you argue on the internet about the benefits of being a cuck

Attached: tfw.webm (290x290, 367K)

From what I've read they'll cost developers a headache too, while the FSF profits off their stress and project.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BusyBox#GPL_lawsuits

Even when the license works as intended you're still getting cucked for your work. most jej

>put your code behind a paywall
Yeah dude, someone forked my repo and suddenly mine disappeared.

>the FSF profits off
>lawsuits
WRONG

Are you blind?
>On about August 3, 2010, BusyBox won from Westinghouse a default judgement of triple damages of $90,000 and lawyers' costs and fees of $47,865, and possession of "presumably a lot of high-def TVs" as infringing equipment in the lawsuit Software Freedom Conservancy v. Best Buy, et al., the GPL infringement case noted in the paragraph above.
>No other developers, including original author Bruce Perens and long time maintainer Dave Cinege, were represented in these actions or party to the settlements.
JUST

Are you implying the FSF gets any money from lawsuits?

Are you?

Attached: 71a4996922e040e9d7b4d2dfe84e586307e0d3ae7c6c3ba0ff5d65df906b3bc5_1.jpg (1657x820, 175K)

No I'm not implying it, I'm stating it. The numbers are there. Are you going to try and make a point or are you just desperate for attention?

>Software Freedom Conservancy
YOU DUN GOOFED

What's your point?
>judgement of triple damages $90,000 and lawyers' costs and fees of $47,865
>and
It explicitly states that the lawyers were paid separate.

WRONG!
>GPL v2 is better!

>The GPL does absolutely nothing to prevent the exact situation people criticize BSD for.

Of course it does, this is why Linux is getting a ton of code influx and why the BSD's are practically starving. Companies are the equivalent of the most selfish person imaginable, they will share their 'secret sauce' when they think it's a benefit for them, which is why something like sjw... FreeBSD is being used like a drunken whore at a party.

GPL created a level playing field for companies interested is collaborating on a critical piece of infrastructure, everybody needs to submit their enhancements if they wanted to distribute them, on the BSD side the only enhancements they contribute back are those with zero commercial viability, hence why the BSD's are moving so slow they are practically standing still.

Furthermore it's a great way to avoid having to compete with a proprietary fork of your own project, which projects like Wine had to learn the hard way and then they relicensed to GPL.

It's NOT the best license for everything (there is no such license), GPL is great for standalone/full solution style software, permissive licensing on the other hand is the best choice for libraries/frameworks, or should I say developer targeted code.

The zealots on either side are equally wrong, both licenses has areas where they excel.

if people use your GPL code and make it proprietary then they are doing something illegal and you have the right to sue them and if you do it right you will get lots of money

you're saying that proprietary licenses don't work because at the end of the day people will pirate your software and you can't do nothing about it. so every company that sells proprietary software are cucks. that's your logic.

BSD developers are working for apple for free. there's people working at apple that get paid for copying and pasting their code.
that's what being a cuck is about