Would Linux be more successful with a BSD license?

>But once the code is GPL'd, we cannot get it back.
Yes you can. GPL explicitly requires that you have access to the source code.
If it's proprietary, you CANNOT run the program as you wish. You CANNOT study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish. You CANNOT redistribute copies as you wish so you can help others. You CANNOT distribute copies of your modified versions to others.

You are trying to create an equivalency between the GPL and proprietary software, but the equivalency is false. By denying freedom 0 and freedom 1, the software becomes a form of malware, as the developer can hide all sorts of shady botnets and hidden malicious functionality. GPL GUARANTEES these two human rights for the software and all of its forks.

You can't get it back as BSD code obviously
BSD folks think that corporations are all these evil entities and some are, certainly, but they completely forget that the world is 100% run by those corporations and capitalism, and not helping them have better software fucks you, the end user, in the bottom line
It's certainly a philosophical argument more than anything else at this point, but I don't think GPL has any place in the world as of today

It would most likely technically be used more

Yes they can. They may not be willing to compromise their shitty license by merging it upstream but the code is out there for users. That whole statement strikes me as clueless because the instances of this happening with GPL are very publicly visible whereas when proprietary developers take the code and refuse to give anything back no one even notices or bats an eye. Also Theo is a freeloading bum just like RMS.

GPL folks*

>and not helping them have better software fucks you, the end user, in the bottom line
Holy shit
>and not helping them have better surveillance fucks you, the end user, in the bottom line
HOW??

BSDTODDLERS BTFO!

Attached: satania.gif (540x304, 1.52M)

See
I never said the source code isn't visible, but if some corporation wants to also use that code and you're basically helping them when they give you back code by improving said code, and then some autist goes and wraps the GPL around that, you have to be very careful from that point on to not fuck yourself over on copyrights or IP or whatever, and the corporation itself will play it safe and use something else, which 99% of the time is worse

Because you retard, most corporate software is security-hole ridden crapware
You may not use it, but all your friends do, your bank does, whoever does, and if they get exposed, you get exposed.
The best for everyone would be that instead of shitty botnet crap it would be properly programmed and secure botnet crap
But that's just me

GPL does help corporations have better software. It isn't an anti-corporate license.
>I don't think GPL has any place in the world as of today
That's a pretty weird statement considering GPL is a somewhat complex license made specifically in response to community concerns, has been updated fairly regularly and represents a whole family of licenses. Meanwhile BSD and MIT licenses are outdated junk made in the 80s by universities who didn't give a fuck about anything and just wanted to dump code into the public

>helps corporations have better software
In a bizarro alternate universe where corporations don't compete with each other, yes.
Some corporations may use it, certainly, but not being used side by side with proprietary blobs means that 99% of corporations won't bother. Why make the secret that makes you better than your competitor public?
The GPL has 1 idea of freedom and enforces it, good for them
BSD and MIT have another idea for freedom, and have enforced it from the beginning, no need to change what's already ideal (for them, and me, obviously not you)

So there are rumors that Microsoft will use custom Linux kernel for it's new OS. Imagine how much will GNUmales seethe if it happens lmao. RMS on suicide watch. But on the other side it would be a great boost in popularity of the The superior kernel.

No, the best for everyone would that instead of shitty botnet crap or properly programmed botnet crap, it would be properly programmed and secure Free Software.
You seem to have a vested interest in maintaining the existence of proprietary software. I wonder (((why))) that would be?

Attached: behindthispost.jpg (491x491, 42K)

Stop spreading this FUD. It is well known at this point what companies need to do to become in compliance with copyleft licenses. These licenses are widespread by now and any company who has a lot of experience dealing with ISVs will be able to handle this. In fact many of them are custom made to be corporate-friendly or to explicitly guide the user towards being upsold on something else.

Look mate, I'd love that too more than anything
But you know who wouldn't? Literally everyone that runs the market
And you know why they run the market?
Because competition makes them one-up each other
And you know what one-upping each other implies?
That the one-upped can't look into your code
Whenever you make a company that uses 100% FSF software and it manages to thrive somehow, I'll use it. Until then, stop having your personal fantasies applied to real world scenarios

So you are saying that I can take GPL code and use it side by side with proprietary code (which remains hidden) with no issues?
If so, I take everything back

because the BSD license only exists for corporations to take your work for free and give nothing in return, it's the ultimate cuck license

>Why make the secret that makes you better than your competitor public?
Copyleft does not require you to do this. It requires you to make your code available to users, i.e. people who are already using your software and know what your "secret" is. The idea of copyleft is that keeping secrets from them is wrong as it forces them into a subservient relationship. Notice this has nothing to do with competitors and everything to do with providing a good service for customers.

Also, all of those licenses you mentioned have the same idea for freedom. Don't talk about things you don't understand.

So if Free Software kills competition, how do RedHat, OpenSUSE, and Canonical all exist simultaneously?

this

Yes as long as the proprietary code isn't a derivative work. But you still shouldn't write proprietary code as doing that is unethical.

Because they live specifically out of donations and people working for free
No one said you can't have a small company running on free software, I'm saying it'll never be as big and a game changer
Of course they don't have the same idea for freedom, how did you infer that?
So basically you're saying that GPL code can be proprietary to everyone else as long as the people working on it and the customers have the source code?
I don't want to write proprietary code either, but on my literal contract is the clause that if I reveal parts of any corporate software to any third entity (ie non-corporation employee), I get sued to hell and back.
I still write BSD license (admittedly shitty by most professional stabdards) software in my free time

What do you say about this

Attached: .png (520x344, 80K)

>So basically you're saying that GPL code can be proprietary to everyone else as long as the people working on it and the customers have the source code?
You could say that, but it won't be proprietary, it just won't be public. Try actually reading it sometime, the requirement is that if you got binaries you also are entitled to receive source code at a reasonable price. This specifically is done so that the developer can't blackmail the customer into accepting unwanted features or force them to disable features unless they pay obscene prices.

It's a picture for ants

So basically all your competitor has to do is be your customer and pay some admittely not obscene amount of money and then they have your entire source code
Do you see a fault with this as a business model?

>The programmers who write improvements to GCC (or Emacs, or Bash, or Linux, or any GPL-covered program) are often employed by companies or universities. When the programmer wants to return his improvements to the community, and see his code in the next release, the boss may say, “Hold on there—your code belongs to us! We don't want to share it; we have decided to turn your improved version into a proprietary software product.”

>Here the GNU GPL comes to the rescue. The programmer shows the boss that this proprietary software product would be copyright infringement, and the boss realizes that he has only two choices: release the new code as free software, or not at all. Almost always he lets the programmer do as he intended all along, and the code goes into the next release.

>The GNU GPL is not Mr. Nice Guy. It says no to some of the things that people sometimes want to do. There are users who say that this is a bad thing—that the GPL “excludes” some proprietary software developers who “need to be brought into the free software community.”

>But we are not excluding them from our community; they are choosing not to enter. Their decision to make software proprietary is a decision to stay out of our community. Being in our community means joining in cooperation with us; we cannot “bring them into our community” if they don't want to join.

>What we can do is offer them an inducement to join. The GNU GPL is designed to make an inducement from our existing software: “If you will make your software free, you can use this code.” Of course, it won't win 'em all, but it wins some of the time.

Except that, in reality, most corporate software is built from the ground up as corporations can have complete ownership of them.
Again, you live in a fantasy realm that looks amazing, but has nothing to do with the real world

No I don't because if the code is GPL then they also have to follow the same rules, meaning you can do the same to them. GPL also isn't a business model anyway, it's a license, A business model is something like "we import widgets from taiwan and resell them in portugal"

This. GPL cucks btfo by reality.

In a parallel world where Microsoft would want a C-level company or a random rich individual to give out the exact same (open-source) product to others for 1/10th the price or for completely free, sure

BASTED

I really see no problem with that, Microsoft's prices are unacceptable for many people anyways.

Again, why doesn't this happen with RedHat, OpenSUSE, and Canonical? Well technically it happens, as you can easily get free versions of all of their software, but somehow it doesn't seem to destroy them, and they still continue to operate just fine. Hmm, it's almost like this isn't as big of a deal as you're making it out to be.
It's almost like you're the one not living in reality.

If they are a software company yes. The other 99% of businesses in the world that aren't software companies don't have that concern, they either buy proprietary licenses from the software companies or they use a free and open source solution.

Of course they are, I completely agree
But what is Microsoft's incentive to let that happen?
I for one haven't used a Microsoft program in over a decade out of ethical reasons like this, but most people won't bother and Microsoft will have no reason to change their license or pricing

>The BSD is superior because it gives you the freedom to relicense derivative works!
>Fuck you GPL fags for relicensing our software

Do you want to compare what all those 3 make in a year with any of the big proprietary software companies?

I was just illustrating the point that companies give software back, I don't mind relicensing software, everyone is free to do as they wish imo
I don't even believe IP or copyrights should be a thing, sue me

no because Linux is to hard to use so it will still be unpopular

>Compare businesses that compete fairly vs state-sponsored monopolies
What are you exactly trying to prove here?

There is obviously no incentive if people continue to put up with their bad behavior and don't firmly refuse them. This is what boomers wanted.

For the millionth time
I don't like those businesses either, my point is that they would never be as big as they are if they didn't compete unfairly and use proprietary software
I'm NOT saying that proprietary software is better, I'm saying that the current world is shit and we need to do the best we can do so that the software people get that spy on then shit on them whatever are at LEAST secure

My point exactly, and as I just said () , the BSD license is making the best out of a bad (but sadly realistic) situation

>I'm saying that the current world is shit and we need to do the best we can do so that the software people get that spy on then shit on them whatever are at LEAST secure
“we” don’t need to do anything. I would rather have the whole world burn than to support a megacorp for free like some kind of microsoft windows or chrome user.

Used by more average consumers than Linux, so very.

Well sure, but that's just your opinion man
I'd rather not the average normie microshit user that for better or worse is a friend of mine get my personal info in his computer hacked and I get exposed

what kind of personal information would your friend even have on you? I don’t understand.

Linux is used as servers in many big companies across the world, I'd say that's fairly successful already.

Well let's say for example that we schedule for a plane trip and he saves the ticket receipt pdfs on his desktop, whatever
Maybe he has a backup db that has my phone number in it

Not him, but maybe it's his bank running windows and all his fucking banking records are in there
Maybe it's his government and all of his fucking data as well as everyone else's are in some huge ass botnet database

Yeah but that quote is mainly blaming the GPL for 'locking them out' while briefly mentioning that companies contribute back.

Well for what it's worth I completely disagree with the blaming the GPL part too, Theo was just butthurt at that part

I would not say that, it seems that BSD folks are quite complacent about the bad situation.

Well I'm a BSD folk and I'm not

I doubt that, your license is an admission of complacency

>the BSD license is making the best out of a bad (but sadly realistic) situation
Why settle for less when you can aim for something much better? Linux is living proof of this, it's not everyday you see corporations actually cooperating with each other.

Proprietary software holds many industries back and benefits only one group of companies: software giants like Microsoft and Oracle.

Many industries would benefit if GPL was universal because most industries use software as a tool, not as an end-product to sell to consumers.

Programmers would also benefit since these businesses could just hire them to use their knowledge of libraries, ecosystems, etc. In fact, this is already the case.

Proprietary software is the equivalent of extortion in the free market.

Its fate would have been like BSD and Mac OS. Linux itself would be an irrelevant piece of barely maintained software with less than 1% market share even in servers, while its commercial "derivatives" would be billion dollar pieces of software.

Much more.

How many consoles is GNU/Linux used on again? Oh, that's right - zero.

This

>consoles
Wake me up when they start using BSD on something that matters, like supercomputers

>consoles
It was just the network stack I believe, but also what the guy above me said.

It's not GNU, but Android is arguably the most popular gaming platform in existence. Locked-down devices are cancer anyway. This much was obvious when the whole PS3 Linux fiasco went down. It's not a good thing that they switch to BSD.

It would be completely dead.

>consoles
And how many contributions did console developers give to make BSD more usable on desktops, mobile, servers or other consoles? That's right, zero. Wake up, BSD model is completely unsustainable as long as (((Copyright and Copyleft))) laws exist.

How many FreeBSD/OpenBSD/NetBSD systems can run my playstation games? Oh, that's right - zero

Because this happened:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIX_System_Laboratories,_Inc._v._Berkeley_Software_Design,_Inc.

>The USL v. BSDi lawsuit was filed in 1992 and led to an injunction on the distribution of Net/2 until the validity of USL's copyright claims on the source could be determined.
>The lawsuit slowed development of the free-software descendants of BSD for nearly two years while their legal status was in question, and as a result systems based on the Linux kernel, which did not have such legal ambiguity, gained greater support.
>Linus Torvalds has said that if 386BSD or the GNU kernel had been available at the time, he probably would not have created Linux.

Why are you spamming?

>And how many contributions did console developers give to make BSD more usable on desktops, mobile, servers or other consoles? That's right, zero.
That's wrong though.

wiki.freebsd.org/Myths

>The BSD License Means Companies Don't Contribute Back

>The BSD license means that you can take the code in FreeBSD and do whatever you want with it, as long as you don't sue us or pretend that you wrote it. Without the legal obligation to share code, it is possible to use FreeBSD code almost anywhere. Some companies, almost certainly, will take our code, modify it, and never give anything back. They are free to do this, however many don't.

>Consider, for example, the case of two major Internet companies: Google and Yahoo! The former bases their internal infrastructure on a GPL'd operating system, while the latter uses FreeBSD. Because Google does not distribute their modified operating system, they can keep things like the GoogleFS private. In cases like this, where software is developed for in-house use, there are no differences in the requirement to share changes between the two licenses. There are, however, some issues with linking that mean that, for example, a GPL'd library can't be used where a BSD licensed one could be.

>A lot of companies have made significant contributions to FreeBSD over the years. They don't (usually) do this out of a sense of altruism or as a result of legal threats, but out of the most dependable of motives: self interest. Maintaining a fork of any project, especially one that is developed as quickly as FreeBSD, is expensive. Pushing changes upstream is a lot cheaper. If there are changes that are useful to a wider community and not core to their own business interests, then it's cheaper to publish them and reduce the maintenance cost of the fork than to keep them private.

It doesn't matter that it's non-zero when less than 5% of work they do makes it back to BSD-licensed projects.

Then why can't I insert my game disks into a FreeBSD system and run them?
You're full of shit.

imagine putting time in making software for free, just so some corporation can take your product, close it and sell it for their profit

the ultimate cuckold license lmao

It would be an irrelevant footnote in the history of cuckolded software. Just like BSD.

"Over the years, I've become convinced that the BSD license is great for code you don't care about" - Linus Torvalds.

you literally can't fucking do that, read it again. it clearly says WRAP in there

I may be retarded but does 'wrap' not mean 'make some changes and then redistribute as gpl'?

it doesn't

Then what does it mean?

it means the bsd code itself is unmodified

Why would they be complaining about their unmodified code being distributed as gpl?

you can't relicense stuff without permission

What? I'm fairly certain you can

The result of mass dumping of low-quality unmaintained code onto sites like github.

What about ASL 2.0? It's popular among Rust folks and has a Patents clause.

Microsoft contributes to Linux, why can't I just play Windows games on Linux?

You are much more valuable to Microsoft as a captive consumer who will just buy whatever shit game they put out this year in order to justify your investment in an overpriced graphics card

I wish Microsoft would just die as well.

>people get that spy on then shit on them whatever are at LEAST secure
So you want their botnet to be secure and therefore unremovable? You are also forgetting the fact that anything not gplv3 will let them lock down any user updates and you will be stuck with vulnerable code when they no longer care about the device.
wtf how does that even make sense? Their contribution to linux is the payment even if they are only doing it to make their azure shit work better.

Not him, but sometimes the site repeats posts even though you only replied once.

>implying linux isn't successful

Best copyright license is no license.
You can't fight fire with fire.
Just impose no restrictions whatsoever.
If someone wants to be a jew and steal it and sell it to sheeple, then do it. It's their soul.

It would quickly be fractured, and lose individual relevance. It would cease to exist as "linux", really