What do you think of permissive free software licenses?

GPL is freedom of software and BSD is market freedom, some people like one some people like the other

it's retarded either way because neither GPL guys nor BSD guys have a general view of the world, they just autistically center their minds around 1 point and pretend that's all that matters

Attached: 1539903564971.jpg (443x455, 96K)

>S E E T H I N G
Another high quality comment only a BSD faggot could provide.

Based zoomer

Attached: Screenshot_GroupMe_20181004-143913.png (1066x1202, 294K)

>gpllet upset when someone else speaks his language

>my literally less permissive license is more free than the alternative

GPL ensures the proliferation of greater freedom. You are arguing that there is more freedom when people are enslaved because the slave owner has the freedom to own slaves.

BSD is like anarchy

GNU is like a constitution

>allow the four freedoms
That literally say that you need to allow for your software to be given away for free

No, that it can be redistributed, not necessarily for free.

>proliferation of greater freedom
it's called "individual freedom". this is why everyone calls you faggots communists. slave ownership is not comparable to code licensing, in almost every thread why does someone always go for this? maybe it's because it's the wordplay that you need to make your arguments convincing. you CANNOT change the reality that you are taking my rights away from me.

If it's FREEDOM to redistribute, then it literally means you have no say in whether it's for free or money. It depends fully on whoever does the redistribution

You are pretending that freedom is not a right that needs to be guaranteed for all. Your freedom to own slaves does not trump the freedom of others to not be enslaved. The software should not be enslaved by a non-free licence, which a permissive licence would allow someone else to do. The GPL ensures that freedom is maintained for all.
>It depends fully on whoever does the redistribution
Yes, that is their freedom. Would you tell someone they couldn't re-sell a car or house you sold to them?

>taking away your rights to give code away for free to proprietary companies like microsoft, apple, oracle, etc who will then turn around and use the code to take away both of our rights
btw all copyright is unconstitutional thought policing and for that reason BSD/MIT licenses are taking away my rights

Literally everyone arguing over this is retarded
Yes the GPL forces you to do X
But you're FREE TO CHOOSE WHETHER OR NOT TO USE IT
I use BSD licenses, and generally most of the people that bother putting up a license know why they do that and have complete knowledge of what wrapping GPL around a project does
You aren't forced to use their products, nor are you forced to try and convert them
Let people do whatever they want and focus on your own code for fucks sake

Proprietary license enslaves users and GPL enslaves programmers, same shit, different flavor.

>GPL enslaves programmers
How so? Because that is a very stupid thing to say.

>freedom of others to not be enslaved
noone but me has implicit access to the fruits of my labour. why do you go for this grandiose argument? if you believed in a market you'd believe in the concept of someone else taking advantage of an opportunity to undercut me if what i produced and the licensing didn't agree with a group of people. you're just not realistic about the real world so you have to paint it like they NEED what i produce.

Nobody has ever made money selling free software, if you GPL your code then you're willingly giving up your work for free, also known as slavery.

i don't give a shit. if i had a problem with this i wouldn't release it or i'd license it different.

this is about rights. the gpl infects EVERYTHING it touches and their derivatives. it is a horrible license.

>makes a comparison between propertiary licenses and slavery
>when someone does the same to his license for chosen ones, he suddendly doesn't understand

>noone but me has implicit access to the fruits of my labour.
Then don't use the GPL and/or sell your software. If you think you should retain control of the property of others once they have bought it then you are just a communist.
>Nobody has ever made money selling free software
Demonstrably false.
>if you GPL your code then you're willingly giving up your work for free, also known as slavery.
So volunteering is also slavery by your definition?
It's almost like proprietary licences and the GPL are nothing alike, so a reversal of my argument is not apt. Hmm.

Linux (GPL license):
>completely dominates the server market
>most popular open-source desktop OS
>basis of the world's most popular mobile OS, which Google HAD to make open source because of the GPL
BSD:
>used by apple as the basis for their garbage proprietary OS (inb4 >but apple open sourced all the non-important parts of mac OS)
>used by sony to make the proprietary locked down OS for their gaymer devices
>abysmal desktop market share despite the aforementioned facts
Congratulations BSDfags, you played yourselves.

>the GPL infects everything it touches
So? What you want is practically begging for GNUtards to stop using the license they prefer, aka the inverse (sort of) of most GNUtards begging for proprietary vendors to make everything open source
If you make a good product and give it a BSD license, people will use it, and that's the purpose of the BSD license
Not arguing over retarded legalities. If you don't want that, you are perfectly described by OP's pic

>Nobody has ever made money selling free software
bait
>if you GPL your code then you're willingly giving up your work for free
nowhere does GPL say you have to do this
>also known as slavery
typically slaves are given food and shelter

>Somalia is a more free country because you are allowed to rape and steal

In my view, there are two problems with the GPL:

First, it does not in practice work to accomplish its goal. I've worked in the embedded Linux space for some years, and I've found that it doesn't matter whether or not the GPL is "protecting" you. If a company is open-source friendly, they will give you the source, even if it's BSD licensed and they don't have to. If they are not open source friendly, but the GPL requires them to give you the source, they will either straight up ignore you, or more often, give you some demonspawn tarball that may or may not compile, but either way is completely worthless because it's written by Chinese contractors.

Second, it makes life a real pain for developers who prefer permissive licensing. To wit, OpenBSD has had their code "taken" by the Linux kernel and improved, but they can't take the improvements back because they are under the GPL. In this way, the GPL is not friendly to the broader open source ecosystem -- only to Richard Stallman's Freedom with a capital F kids club.

>I have had it with lawyers trying to interpret freedom. If I write software which I intend to give away, I don't want to have to stick several pages of legalese on it to make sure nobody exploits it or any such meta-bable. If I have decided that I'll give away some code I've written, I going to give it away, period, none of this "unless it is worth a million to somebody" rubbish.
- Poul-Henning Kamp

>so a reversal of my argument is not apt
It's not if it's inconvenient for you. Hmm.

when you develop a product using the gpl license everything it touches has to permit the restrictions the original author intended. ironically by trying to create a free product you are restricting the freedom of your users to sell. this is why people argue against it at a philosophical level because once it touches your codebase because of convenience or relicensing in the future you've created unnecessary work for everyone. it is a cancer.

>So volunteering is also slavery by your definition?
No but you and your kind have been very successful in fooling a lot of people into giving up their work for free.

>another gpl faggot goes for a slavery argument because it's the only thing his gay worldview can be supported by

This right here.
Both are better than communism (proprietary), but although ancaps will screech all day long, we all know a real constitution that is enforced is better.

>i don't give a shit
yes, we already knew who you were in league with

>the gpl infects EVERYTHING it touches
so do proprietary licenses but you seem to have no problem helping them

when will you BSDfags stop trying to pretend you care about freedom and just admit to your shilling?

What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you proprietary slave? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class at Harvard, and I’ve been involved in numerous free software projects, and I have contributed to over 300 core-utils for GNU. I am skilled in Lisp and I’m St. IGNU-cius, saint of the Church of Emacs. You are nothing to me but just another unethical non-free software advocate. I will distribute the fuck out of your source code with freedom the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit about me and the GPL on the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my colleagues at FSF and your binaries are being reversed engineered right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your copyright. You're fucking dead, kid. Free software can be anywhere, anytime, and it can ensure your freedom in over four ways, and that’s just with the GPLv2. Not only am I extensively skilled at hacking, but I have access to the source of the entire GNU userland and core-utils and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable proprietary code off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what ethical retribution your little “clever” program was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have ensured your users' freedom. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit free as in freedom all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, kiddo.

>It's not if it's inconvenient for you. Hmm.
It just doesn't make sense. How is guaranteed freedom akin to slavery?
That is a good thing. The goal is for all software to be free so people have more freedom. The spread of the GPL means people who would not allow freedom to their users must give freedom to their users. You are arguing on behalf of the slave owner against the slaves.
>No
Why not? Is it not also giving away your labour for free?

>How is guaranteed freedom akin to slavery?
When said freedom comes at the cost of the unpaid labour then it is slavery.

>the gpl infects EVERYTHING it touches and their derivatives. it is a horrible license.
Well if you don't want the GPL to infect your project then you can just avoid using GPL licensed code. What's next, are you gonna complain about not being able to include proprietary binaries in your project too?

dumbest post in this thread.
>my permissive license is comparable to a proprietary license
faggot, once you accidentally use some code that gets relicensed because it's dev went to some gpl meetup you'll understand the difference between the bsd "do whatever you want kid" license and "ok this is mine". why would we be talking about code instead of the output if it were a proprietary license?

MIT baby

t. Ballmer

Nobody is forced to work for free.

>this is a good thing
It's not, but you'll see how the GPL will be used against free and open sourve software soon enough

True but the GPL makes it impossible to profit off of your work.

i put gpl licenses on everything and encourage my friends to do the same
MIT is cancer

i don't have that problem because most of the software i work on is GPL

>why would we be talking about code instead of the output if it were a proprietary license?
why are you talking about the code instead of the output if you already knew the licenses were incompatible with what you were trying to do?

>So volunteering is also slavery by your definition?
yes, unironically

>wow what the fuck how can people claim the 13th amendment increases freedom when it restricts my ability to own slaves???

So then why are you comparing proprietary license with slavery?

>another person reaches for the slaves argument

>gpl slips into another project because someone believes this bullshit
again, it restricts the rights of people to be as permissive as they want with their code and to sell it. i don't give a fuck about what they do with it because if i did it wouldn't be online. it 100% punishes the commercial actors more than anyone else and ironically gpl becomes a liability for people who want to sell a commercial offering alongside their existing project and consulting services. you just want everything to be literally free of cost so you don't have to work.

Free software is open source, saying open source there is unnecessary. Are you threatening me?
No it doesn't. This is demonstrably false.
Ok, retard.
Because it disallows users their essential freedom.

obligatory

Attached: licenses explained.jpg (1200x1500, 297K)

>Because it disallows users their essential freedom.
Oh so you just have a retarded definition of slavery, good to know.

you have ten seconds to explain the key difference between BSD and MIT licenses

fuck it shows you stupid cunt. how do you plan on supporting open source software if noone can making a living alongside their product with a commercial offering if you restrict the customerbase so much? i did not compare the bsd license to any of the commercial licenses and gpl licensed code. not to mention gpl licensed code output is still bound by the cancer.

WTFPL is the only one worth a shit. The rest of them are utterly masturbatory.

What else would be slavery? Depriving someone of their freedom is a good definition.

>are you threatening me?
No, Asians are
There will come a point where the US will have to decide whether or not to ignore licenses so it's market won't die out, and everyone knows what they'll pick

>No it doesn't. This is demonstrably false.
Stay deluded, the fact of the matter is, nobody has made a living selling free software, you can keep parroting how the GPL doesn't restrict you from doing so over and over again but it won't change reality.

>and another person implies that proprietary software is akin to slavery

>Ok, retard.
>he does it for free
ok, retard

Attached: free.jpg (224x225, 9K)

WTFPL is edgy shit with zero actual value

>Second, it makes life a real pain for developers who prefer permissive licensing. To wit, OpenBSD has had their code "taken" by the Linux kernel and improved, but they can't take the improvements back because they are under the GPL. In this way, the GPL is not friendly to the broader open source ecosystem -- only to Richard Stallman's Freedom with a capital F kids club.
Any software that is permissively licenced can be stolen to improve the quality of proprietary software. Your ideology is a detriment to free software as a whole.

Just like every other license.

>the law may not protect something so let's just give up entirely
Is this the mindset of every cuck license?
There are multi-million dollar companies that sell free software.

>Because it disallows users their essential freedom.

>being able to give away copies of someone else's work for free
>"essential" freedom

Yes. If you owned a house would you care if only the original architect could make changes or sell the house? You wouldn't own it then, would you? Free software is about the user owning the software.

>stolen to improve the quality of proprietary software

Attached: others should fail.jpg (500x375, 97K)

Your freedom comes at the cost of others though, so you're no better than the people you call slaveowners.

Not sure what software you're looking at but if you ask me the GPL dual licensing business model seems to more popular than ever these days

>you just want everything to be literally free of cost so you don't have to work

Ironic coming from the guy who wants everything to be free of cost and with a lax permissive license so you can profit off other people's work without paying them, without paying lawyers, without having to write any code yourself, without having to bother thinking about those pesky users and their freedoms, etc.

>Your freedom comes at the cost of others though
Who?

>mindset of every cuck license
You already know what the BSD license mentality is, you are free to be a commie in a free market society
Sadly in a commie society people aren't allowed to be free
What I described though, was just realism, not ideological drivel

>32 instances of "slave" in this thread
Gay Pissy Leech license

The programmers, you want them to give up their work for free.

>Yes. If you owned a house
So if you bought a house you're able to magically create physical copies of it and give it away for free? Good to know, can I have one?

Only literal GPL commies use slave unironically
It's sad really

You want to allow others to own slaves. Even if you don't do it yourself cuck licenses do not prevent others from taking away the freedom of their users and enslaving their software with a proprietary license.
They do it by choice, you fucking retard.
Why should that change the definition of ownership?

>noone can making a living alongside their product with a commercial offering if you restrict the customerbase so much
the customer base isn't restricted, they can sell whatever they like even if it's copylefted

>gpl licensed code output is still bound by the cancer
classic case of fox and grapes

>succeed
Is that what they call never getting contributions back? Enjoy your fucking bitrot.

>They do it by choice, you fucking retard.
Sure they do and then you and your kind will guilt trip them by calling them slaveowners.

>allow others to own slaves
Slavery implies forcing people to do things they don't want to
Proprietary licenses imply people that WILLINGLY buy X product can't see what's in the source code
Doesn't seem very forceful if you can just not buy it

You've really lost the plot.

>all these fucking cucks thinking they're going to be rich someday by giving away permissively licensed software FOR FREE

Attached: 1537060935260-g.gif (500x491, 376K)

Which freedom is more important.
The freedom to move freely across the land
The freedom to stop people from traversing your property
The property in question would be a forest where no body lives.

Attached: 1530914315964.webm (1920x1080, 2.73M)

You mean just like how you lost grip of reality?

>implying you can be rich by using or programming any cucked open source shit
Oh I am laffing

The second one obviously, as without it you wouldn't be free to do as you wish in your own land

OpenBaSeD

Did you miss the part where OpenBSD has their code used by Linux and never gets contributions back *because* of the GPL?

bsd licensing means that i can take advantage of the free properties of code that others elect to share and they can appreciate that i can take advantage of it 100% of the way that i want to. the idea that i can repackage something as is without any work is not realistic and i'm not implying that either but ideally we wouldn't be interacting with lawyers to enforce my commercial rights. if someone wants to interact with my commercial product then unless i am forcing them i am literally not stripping them of their freedoms unlike what you want reality to seem like. ironically if i want to sell a product i need to think about the exact need that my customers are taking advantage of and if i'm using someone else's code if the usecase of my customerbase shifts and i need a specific feature from the software that i'm using i could engage with the community to add it, but with the gpl there's no money flowing so someone has to eat a hit for it.

>To wit, OpenBSD has had their code "taken" by the Linux kernel and improved, but they can't take the improvements back because they are under the GPL.
So the TL;DR is that BSD fags are literally seething because someone modified and re-licensed their code in ways that are perfectly in accordance with the BSD license? What is the reasoning there? Blame other people because turns out your license doesn't protect you from jack shit?

>arguing with GPLtards
You're stupid to do so and will only waste your time doing so
Just ignore them, they're a self-defeating purpose to begin with
The state of Linux projects with CoC and whatnot clearly shows this

>rams stick in bicycle wheel
>FUCKING FREETARDS