Download some freetard's source code for something popular

ubuntu did that, plus they sent user queries directly to amazon.

I unlicense all my shit just so someone can "steal" them.

based

Changed up the program a little bit, sorry source code for my programs are a secret

They've done it many, many times. Did you really think the FSF only exists to feed and house that fat RMS neckbeard? They exist to provide a legal backstop for retards violating the GPL.

linux-magazine.com/Online/News/FSF-Sues-Cisco-for-GPL-Violations

sued

>d-done it many times!
>one link from 2008
okay this is epic

>put gpl on your shit
>someone closes source on your ass
>FSF sues
>FSF gets compensated
gpl is the ultimate cuck license.

With the GPL you have to redistribute changes to the program if you use even a single line of the source code from another program.

>>FSF gets compensated
Good. They earned it for taking up that legal case and defending the license that the creator of the source code chose for it. This also punishes whoever violated the license. And I know that the money they make will go towards suing the shit out of future thieving niggers.

Value is relative. When I release source under the GPL I'm compensated in changes and improvements to my work done by others. When niggers don't redistribute my modified source code they're stealing from me. That source code doesn't belong to you. Give it back, Jamal.

You can literally just incorporate back end code into a new UI. Might take a week or two longer.

>all two of them?
Ads pay like two cents a month per user.There's no money in it at all, unless you happen to be Facebag.

nobody will know what your code has been licenced under if you only release a binary. checkmate GPL niggers.

That's what the GPL is for. :^)

Cuck license? Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
If the asshole closing the source gets sued, that's the right thing.

BSD-style licenses are the real cuck licenses. Anyone can take your code, close the source, and there is nothing you can do about it.

For each file given, GNU strings prints the printable character sequences that are at least 4 characters long
(or the number given with the options below) and are followed by an unprintable character.

Depending upon how the strings program was configured it will default to either displaying all the printable
sequences that it can find in each file, or only those sequences that are in loadable, initialized data
sections. If the file type in unrecognizable, or if strings is reading from stdin then it will always display
all of the printable sequences that it can find.

For backwards compatibility any file that occurs after a command line option of just - will also be scanned in
full, regardless of the presence of any -d option.

strings is mainly useful for determining the contents of non-text files.

Ok you retards actually triggered me a little pretending that Freetards can enforce their shitty "licenses".
>1. They do not have the resources to go after every pajeet who wipes shit on their sourcecode and redists it.
>2. They would need to notice it first and as long as pajeet only uses mainstream webstores, Freetard neckbeards will never notice
>3. Companies ignore patents and copyright ALL the time when they realise the potential for being taken to court is tiny because the little man has no money.

>nobody will know what your code has been licenced under if you only release a binary
This is the dumbest shit I've read all day. Learn 2 computer, megafaggot.

Name one instance of GPL violation that ultimately ended up unpunished and wasn't done by chinks.

Exactly my fucking point, no one fucking notices and it never sees the daylight. You will only get sued if you're worth sueing e.g. Megacorp

Spot on.

By definition you're not gonna do much with that stolen code if you're not worth suing, so in the end it's irrelevant.

exactly this

Then please tell me how you would find out.

Samefag.

I'd post a screenshot but there's not much point.

People would use the original version with no ads instead of your shitty version though.

Attached: 1467160610384.jpg (640x406, 13K)

Not samefag, as also states. He's right, as an indie dev you simply don't have the assets to go on a suing spree on whoever took and reused your source code for commercial purposes. You need all the money for marketing / publishing / hardware / ... as a small developer.

These opensource licenses are meant for large software projects to ensure an income in services from the creator or to ensure a certain quality in the codebase. And when needed to get into a legal battle when another company is taking over your market segment with similar technology.

Protection of the intellectual property of your source code in regards to misuse comes in second. It's all built on an ethical base. That's why the GPL license in general (with all their copyright bullshit) is not worth it as it puts you as original developer in a very open position as well in regards to code release.

If you wan't to release in opensource just use MIT/Apache/.. whatever permissive open license and use it as an insentive for other developers to help build your codebase.

>all these freetards ITT
Lmaoing at your pathetic poor cunt lives

>redist closed source from open
>no differentiation between original source and fork
watch the licensing, you could get sued for everything you make

if you do not add to original code, you are doing everything that GPL is asking from you. You can add closed source to open source project and you don't actually have to release your code if your code didn't add shit to the project.

>here you can use my software for whatever you want!
>wow ok thanks
*makes money with it*
>NOO STOP IT YOU CAN'T DO THAT >:(

that bear looks hilarious

Holy shit this might actually be a good a idea.

Attached: 1546106819958.gif (213x199, 339K)

>here you can use my software for whatever you want!
that's not really how OS licensing works

not true
people are willing to pay for the most convenient option, it has been shown time and time again
see: everything that is on the play store for a fee and on f-droid at the same time

Attached: a.png (758x1055, 170K)

Eh who cares, who ever wrote the open source software would have done this in the first place if it was his intention.

Good open source software will make money on support plans.

As a big time OSMand user: There is a difference between the paid and the free version. The free version only allows maps of six countries downloaded through the app.

You can still download and add them seperately though. It's just a nice motivation to sponsor them for normies.

problem is there's nothing good to use

damn you summoned the rage

>what is a contingency fee

Stupid fuck

>what is evidence of this actually happening
stupid fuck

>somebody closes YOUR source
>a 3rd party sues and gets compensated
it's like licensing your shit for someone else. literally. prove me wrong here

That's not how it works at all.

FSF can only sue for FSF projects. FSF projects require copyright assignment from contributors. If you put GPL on your own shit the FSF can't sue on your behalf.

Then who the fuck is going to sue? Me? OP was right.

You don't have to sue, it's just a leverage for negotiation with the other party. Lawyer up and write a scary ass letter to OP. Demand taking the app off the play store and some compensation.

yeah, nah. you think a freetard would ever "lawyer up" or "send a letter"? Forget it.

Well the whole point of a license is that it's enforceable in court. Otherwise why bother? Just release your shit in public domain.

Mega corps just stop using the code in violation when caught. Usually happens way after they made all they could on the software.

I always do. But OP was right, there's nobody stopping people from doing what he's doing. I thought FSF was about suing those who violate GPL, but I guess they just jerk off on donation money instead.

You can always try to push your project to FSF, so they take care of GPL violations. If this is what you want. There is also SF Conservancy sfconservancy.org/about/. They have some legal history too.

This is why the GPL is a selfish fucked up license that only profits Stallman and the FSF.

If they were truly about free as in freedom, they would not restrict companies from adapting open source with proprietary code and closing the source.
Probably one of the reasons why people like John Carmack and companies like Apple use the Apache or BSD licence when releasing open source code.

>Implying you possess the required brainpower

Attached: smug kaguya.jpg (667x900, 287K)

All those buzzwords won't convince anyone, Apple.

Same old argument as always.
>b-but it's not acthcyually FREE!
>i can't do what i want with it!
We all know what you parasites want to do: exactly what OP said, profiting from the work of others. This means taking away freedom from others. I don't want my FOSS to be used for such purposes.

Ever wondered why companies suddenly have a boner for "Open source" these years (and of course pushing the "permissive licenses“ meme)?
It's to get tons of free labor, plain and simple.
And this doesn't apply just to massive corporations: I worked on some webshit at a startup years ago which mainly produced mobile applications, and the standard workflow was literally finding some code on GitHub, reincorporating it in proprietary "apps" and selling them on the Play Store, etc.

Don't play their game. Release your software under the GPL and AGPL.

Except Carmack himself approves the GPL: twitter.com/id_aa_carmack/status/434007387020607488

*sends DMCA notice*
You goin to jail Jamal

based
fuck freetards

clearly outlines waste of resources against general population, in doing it

this is what happened to retroarch

>Really, all they do is prevent you from being sued if your software results in massive damages to a company.
that's just the last part of the loicense that is usually in caps for legal reasons i assume

> implying your nigger faggot brain can even
kek

no can't

I literally just explained to you why GPL code is NOT gratis (free as in free beer). Profiting off of my work while giving nothing back is THEFT. If you fork my GPL software and close the source you are STEALING from me. Do you understand that concept yet? I made software that I wish to be compensated for, and the price tag is the GPL. If you go to any brick and motar store and rip price tags off and walk out, you'll be arrested for stealing. This isn't any different.

Attached: MS_professional.png (1890x1630, 448K)

They release it under opencuck license so it can be later used in proprietary software. It you release something as GPL it must forever stay free and open source, so you can't use it in proprietary software.

GPL is for user freedom, not corporate entity freedom.

Read GPL v3

so what kind of license can not sue you if you do what the OP says? and what do you have to do to protect yourself from the potential of being sued?

>This isn't any different.
except he won't get arrested user.

Attached: 093502935092350.jpg (399x385, 29K)

Yeah, you'll get sued by the FSF.

Attached: 1401856354228.jpg (651x807, 53K)

how if it's FUCKING PROPRIETARY

Attached: 1546481844386.jpg (472x461, 30K)

It can be proven by comparing the binaries, dumbfuck. How do you think the free software community went after SkyOS? By the way, proprietary != closed source. You're a massive brainlet and you should commit suicide.

Attached: 1516490615958.png (1024x910, 88K)

so are you going to do that with every single app in existence?

Freetards btfo