Is there a bigger cancer?

Yes, anti freedom capitalist shits like you.

...

Brainlet here, why people hate gpl 3 license?

Proprietary cucks cant stand freedom

Attached: gnuchalk.jpg (480x640, 192K)

Because it's extremists trying to force their trend instead of doing it gently.
Let's take an example since you say you're a brainlet.
Say you need a website for a business idea you have. You pay me money for a code that handles your business, i give you 2 choices: Either i use an opensource library but you MUST make all your website opensource, OR i have to code it from scratch and so it'll be longer to get your product and it'll be more expensive.
What do you choose ?
Nobody in its right mind would choose the open source idea, because then anyone with more money could execute the idea behind the business faster and even more efficiently.
The alternative is MIT or any other license that doesn't dictate how you should deliver your whole code just because of a small library in your giant software, where you use the library, but you have to SAY you're using it in the terms. And if you're a really good guy, you can just donate so that the guy behind the library can keep maintaining it if it helps.

At the end of the day, the only guys who support GPL are people that do not know how businesses work. Or maybe they know, but they just want to force everyone to deliver open source code.
protip: that won't happen in a capitalist world.

The complete geniuses at the FSF made a new version of the license GPL3 that is legally incompatible with the old license GPL2

It's compatible with "GPL2+", but that involves you putting a line in the license saying that you're Stallman's bitch

>tfw forked dead software that was gpl2+ and relicensed it to gpl3+
feels good man and it triggers bsd and proprietary cucks

Your example is literally wrong and backwards. Other people executing the idea behind the business faster and more efficiently is good, that's called progress. If the code is GPLed then they would have to contribute back their changes too, so everyone benefits. MIT license would allow them to take it and not give back.

>the only guys who support GPL are people that do not know how businesses work
>that won't happen in a capitalist world.
No, what you mean is it won't happen in a monopolist's world. We know plenty how business works. Free markets require free software.

Because it requires you to give something back, and this triggers BSD cucks and corporate shills

like this fuckwit right here.

>Your example is literally wrong and backwards. Other people executing the idea behind the business faster and more efficiently is good, that's called progress. If the code is GPLed then they would have to contribute back their changes too, so everyone benefits. MIT license would allow them to take it and not give back.
You either live in utopia or you need to tell me where little and middle-sized businesses think like that.

Wow now that you said it you're right, I am. I didn't notice at first but thanks for telling me.

No, people remove the "or later" part, which makes it incompatible.

I don't know, user.

> GPLv3 differs from GPLv2 in following things:

> 1) Patents, i.e. you can't circumvent GPLv3 by using GPL software as something you build your software on, but then don't share it because while source code may be available, you patent the code. It was possible with GPLv2.

> 2) DMCA, i.e. you can't circumvent GPLv3 with using DMCA which makes circumventing DRM illegal in US. It was possible with GPL2.

> 3) Tivoization, i.e. you can't circumvent GPLv3 using digital encryption, when you release the source code, but not the necessary cryptographic keys.

Think like what? That they have to follow the license of the software they use?

I'm talking about businesses that think that open source is good for them and everyone else.

Or maybe you can't make the difference between how the world should work to make everything better (cf open source everywhere) and how the world actually works (cf fk everyone else, it's all about the money)

I'm all for open source. But like I said, in the current world, little and middle-sized businesses can't work if they use GPL. Or even if they could, they just don't do it.

Reminder that "permissive" licenses like MIT or BSD are passive contributions to proprietary software development. For example, the permissive licensed MINIX is what powers the largest backdoor software today; the Intel ME.
This is what they don't tell you when claiming "BSD is more free". The only additional "freedom“ permissive licenses provide is the "freedom" to remove freedom.

Not really sure what you're talking about, there are many small and mid size businesses that use and work on GNU and/or Linux
>it's all about the money
part of the reason it's appealing is due to the cost savings

Again: Why would anyone trust Richard Stallman to arbitrarily change their software's license at any point in the future?

Based Linus (correctly) removed the "or later" a couple of years before GPL3's release based on what he'd heard on the grapevine.

Using GNU/Linux doesn't force you to release your source code..
I'm talking about, for example, using a GPL library, which forces you to release your whole code, even if the library accounts for 0.01% of all the LOC.

>having to open sores the website
except a website is a specific example of what _doesn't_ need open sourcing. You don't distribute your server-side code so you don't need to give it to anyone but your client.

Attached: Pepe Neue.gif (591x464, 834K)

My bad for the wrong example.
Let's say we're talking about a software that goes into a small piece of hardware that the client then distributes.

Then build a small separate program on top of the library and talk to it through a network socket, then you only have to release that

Every goddamn embedded device seems to be running Linux these days

>I'm talking about, for example, using a GPL library, which forces you to release your whole code, even if the library accounts for 0.01% of all the LOC.
No it doesn't.

AGPL

>free as in freedom
Is it really free if you're chained to it

GPLv2 since its license termination clause is basically free money in the form of legal settlements.

you forgot the most import and the most fundamental issue with the GPLv2.

Unlike GPLv3, any violation of the license immediately terminates the allowance to use the software.

that means even if the violating party begins complying, they can still be forced to legally settle the issue. this is what some linux netfilter developer has been ding across europe to collect millions in the form of legal settlements in dispute over GPLv2 violations on linux netfilter code.

only a literal retard would use GPLv2 unless they are seeking to profiteer.

Why would anyone trust a proprietary company to change their software's license at any point in the future?

>Based Linus (correctly) removed the "or later" a couple of years before GPL3's release based on what he'd heard on the grapevine.

What a surprise, Linus is now paid by all the hardware companies that were (and still are) dicking people over with DRM, patent trolling and locked down devices

Dubious ground there. Most lawyers still recognise that as a derivative work. If your program can’t operate without the component you’re choosing to depend on, that’s generally considered a derivative work. The way to escape this is to support multiple options for that dependency, or make it completely optional.

yes, retard. freedom doesn't mean people have the freedom to take other's freedom. the GPL is intended to ensure all changes be available for the benefit of all.

retards like you are basically saying people should be allowed the "freedom" to enslave others.

fuck off.

Threads like this

>The threat of being compelled to legally comply with free software licenses is bad.

Spotted the communist.

Obviously it should be optional.

If it isn't optional and you're trying to build a business on GPLed code then that's fine, but having the expectation that you will be able to get to stop all competitors from doing that is stupid because the whole point is that you have to share with them (and vice versa).

that's not the point of the GPL. the point is to make people comply and and immediately suing for monetary damages is a dubiously moral one at best. GPLv3's terms on license restoration is a good thing that prevents such malicious suites.

just use LGPL
>protects your intellectual property
>keeps your work open source
>proprietary software can still use the binaries and APIs

>Every goddamn embedded device seems to be running Linux these days
FreeRTOS and Contiki are both an order of magnitude lighter but can still do all the shit an embedded OS needs to do. The only companies still using embedded Linux either don't want to port proprietary codebases to a new open-source OS, or they're too retarded to write their own Contiki knock-off.

BSD and MIT

The actual difference between GPLv3 and GPLv2 is the following:

Prevent distributors of GPLv3 licensed software from suing users of said software for patents they might have in the software.

Prevent blocking the users from running their own code on devices which was distributed with GPLv3 licensed software (anti-tivoization).

In other words, GPLv3 only improves the rights of the end user, which is what GPL is all about to begin with.

eula

gpl is the only non-cucked license.

Intellectual what

we live in a society

GPL is as much cancer as chemotherapy. Yes it's relevant to cancer but it's just there to fix it.

TIL every service using wordpress is open source.

It might be militant in a way that isn't practical in 100% of software cases, but at least they're spreading the value that free software has

These guys are correct.

GPLv3 is not cancer at all, it fixes the issues that GPLv2 had (see and ). It's the best copyleft license available imo.

Attached: potato girl.jpg (500x648, 81K)

OP just doesn't understand that different projects may be more catered to different licenses. There isn't a one size fits all software licence.

Picture of my laptop I took a few weeks ago.

Attached: X60s.jpg (3264x2448, 223K)

why didn't linus like this again?

Yes. The people hating on freedom.

>is it really free if i'm not free to take other's freedom away

it's called thinking mang, it's a bit hard so don't strain yourself

chemo doesn't fix cancer

copyleft bullshit is some of the worst
but systemd and related are far worse

>anti freedom
>capitalist
Huh?

Copyleft is the only way to prevent misuse of a free license. Permissive licenses are the real cancer, and its no coincidence big companies try to manipulate developers to use those instead of the GPL.

Please remember that using the GPL is the simplest way for you to prevent misuse of your terms and to ensure your program stays free as in freedom.

Attached: free shrugs.jpg (449x642, 48K)

this desu famalam

Attached: smart_prize.png (221x282, 35K)

GPLv3 is a communist license masquerading as free
All GPL licenses were never free to begin with, forcing the user to do things they might not want to should they use the license, but GPLv3 takes the cake
Thankfully based OpenBSD devs have pretty much ported everything including the GCC on a BSD license and that LITERALLY triggers the commie
Just look at all those fags ITT seething about BSDs
Also Linus himself hates GPLv3 and I'm more likely to trust the guy that literally wrote linux from scratch over an aging unstable communist and a bunch of NEETs ITT
Not to mention that I'm willing to trust Theo even more
en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Theo_de_Raadt

Attached: 1533139532729.jpg (1200x1500, 309K)

>away, Satan
How can one man be so based
Here's a collection
github.com/davidlind/taas/blob/master/insults.json

>I'm more likely to trust the guy that literally wrote linux from scratch over an aging unstable communist and a bunch of NEETs ITT
Its not a question of trust, its a question of ideology. Its OK if you come to the decision GPL3 is bad (by the way, Linus has nothing against GPL2) by doing some thinking yourself, but don't just listen to other people's opinions and pick one based on their other merits.

My issue with the GPLs are that it doesnt give the programmer enough freedom
I'm an economy major and from every single viable point of view, the MIT license is the only one that matters
Not to mention that chinks dont care about a license to begin with, so the GPL just cucks western devs

u r a moran

proprietary licenses cuck western devs even worse

>from every single viable point of view, the MIT license is the only one that matters
except you know, when you have proprietary companies stifling innovation by abusing patents/DRM, locking down their devices, making modifications and refusing to release them even though there is no value in them keeping it locked up, purposefully ignoring industry standards just to be shitheads, etc

help me here pls
im totally lost in the jargon, GPL, BSD, MIT, Creative commons...
I like free software philosophy but dont want to hold my projects back.
I make websites, javascript libraries, plugins etc.
what licence should i use if i want to sell my projects, but give them full free rights to do whatever and dont force them to use any licence when using my sub-code?

he's right about the chinks
see retroarch

/thread

>and dont force them to use any licence when using my sub-code?
I believe you want a 'permissive license', which would be BSD or MIT, but not GPL. You can also dual-license something. Probably worth doing more reading on this, I'm not an expert.

>capitalism
>freedom
Good goy, good goy.
I miss when Jow Forumstards weren't stupid boot-lickers.

Attached: e2ff700be5e7a49102447a2858e908552d69602c7f89915c46e002e6e0983fdd.jpg (628x682, 165K)

Please take your brain-damaged ideas elsewhere. Most of that picture is wrong.

I hate GPL 2 too. It's proprietary and restrictive but it says it's "free" and even more free than actual free licenses like MIT or BSD.

Based and redpilled

No IP no GPL.