License: gpl

Giving something away with strings isn’t giving it away freely.

>wanting to grope and drool all over my free software and profit from its voluptuous body without giving anything back
not happening

Attached: raphiel paizuri.webm (960x540, 1.78M)

the free software license ensures that freedom is respected and maintained that is one of its central tenets

>people should be allowed to take what was given freely and take it away from those it was given to

>Google, Microsoft, Facebook would like thank all the suckers for their gpl'd code which we modified and kept internal. Thanks for helping us data mining literally everything, cucks!
Well at least you guys got pai...oh wait, nevermind.

this is the most pathetic defeatist thing I've ever read

you meant to type bsd but wrote gpl instead

Attached: sony cucked 3.png (1595x988, 1.46M)

prove facebook uses gpl code or rescind your comment good sir

Based Satania poster.

Do the Japanese have a filler word similar to word "like" as used in the subtitles of your image?

Forced freedom is not really freedom.

Attached: 1554758712804.png (1000x1000, 168K)

seriously though, how did that disgusting fat faggot ever get away with this shit?
there is one and only one true open/free or """gnu/free""" """gnu/open""" whatever you faggots want to use license and its PUBLIC DOMAIN

Attached: why_rms_sucks.jpg (1000x898, 194K)

the freedom not to be free.
read mises

He's talking about the license not the kernel lmao, educate urself

If there's a license, there are strings. GPL has the most important ones.

>permissivecucking and rampant misandry in one post
Checks out

>I am obligated to the software other people write on my terms

@70502657
>anime
cringe

>t. single man

Attached: 1554761226409.png (874x1438, 1.41M)

get out nigger

Why do cuck license faggots always use this retarded argument?

The freedom to own the code myself.

Attached: 1472321917583.png (1279x837, 580K)

>owning ideas

Yes, owning the secret recipe to the finished product. Demanding that recipe is theft and thought policing.

>reverse engineering
>theft

Limiting the distribution of ideas for the sole purpose of fags making cash is far closer to "thought policing".

I never said that.

You're free to use the compiled binaries, distribute them, alter them if possible and reverse engineer them.

>take gpl code
>obfuscate it
>use it in my own project without gpl cancer license

>>(((70508828)))
>t. wants humans to enter a communist hivemind
Fuck off

GPL is pro free market. If you can't offer services valuable to your users, people will fork your shit and make it better, until the same happens to them. Having your customers by the balls would be closer to communism, considering that it makes your income more stable.

Too bad it's against the right for privacy and freedom of thought. GPL is a copyright and copyright laws are inherently evil, anti-freedom, anti-competitive and anti-human rights. The only actual *libre* code is the one in public domain. All licenses are shit.
>Having your customers by the balls
Same applies to GPL.

you retards aint even baiting right

>GPL is a copyright
It's copyleft. It's intented to be the opposite of copyright, hence copyleft. It is fighting copyright by attempting to make the computing ecosystem better for the consumer by making things transparent, and giving companies less power over the consumer.>GPL is anti-freedom, anti-competitive and anti-human rights. The only actual *libre* code is the one in public domain.
>Same applies to GPL.
Can you elaborate on these, ideally with examples. I don't see it.

Using GPL
is encroaching on our right
to encroach on yours

Attached: rms.jpg (235x215, 10K)

>OP-pic: anime
How cringy

anime website

Copyleft is the same shit as copyright. It's not the opposite of copyright because a developer (human, user) is still not free to be left alone by the police/nanny state and is forced to disclose what they're doing with the source code.
>ideally with examples. I don't see it.
I can't help you see what's common sense. So let's go to a food analogy.
I buy a recipe book (or get it from github). I'm allowed to not follow the strict guidelines to make a cake, and let's say I replace strawberries with cherries. I should be allowed to sell the cake or have me and my friends/family eat it without giving away my recipe and being policed into disclosing how I make it. In a world without (((copyright/copyleft))) it's common sense that whoever buys my finished product can:
1. test it to see if it's malicious
2. try to reverse engineer it
3. re-sell it without my intervention
4. alter it and re-sell it without my intervention, with or without "source code" access
5. sell it raw or altered without having to disclose the source/recipe
6. still attribute me as the original creator
7. still be free to release the source code either out of respect or to keep the community alive
Copyleft breaks 4. and 5. Copyleft still needs a nanny state to control the market. Copyleft is just lipstick on the pig and was the only possible reaction to try and lessen the strength of copyright. The proper solution is to remove copyright laws or at least give copyrighted material up to a 1 year limit before it goes into public domain.

>If you don't work for billion dollar corporations for free they've won.
Are you Canadian?
gpl=communist cuck license
internetnews.com/blog/skerner/facebook-linux-CentOS.html try to find the download of their internal modified version.
>Why do cuck license faggots always use this retarded argument?
I'm not sure why gpl proponents always go full npc repeating the same things over and over. None of their point are even true, its odd and cultish.

(cont)
Information that you are given is your property and it only stops being your property if you share it. So if I keep my source code or altered source code a secret while distributing the compiled project, the compiled project is in public domain while the source is in my private domain. Taking the source away from me is the equivalent of forcefully reading my mind or stealing information from my computer, which infringes my privacy and human rights. Copyright, and by extension copyleft, are against common sense and forcefully prevent humanity from sharing or keeping secrets and information.
Not to mention that copyleft still doesn't do anything to enforce competitiveness. The richest company involved with copylefted stuff will always have more influence because they'll always be the first ones to fix/improve the code and sell the improved product in a more convenient way. For example, if every Android device was forced to have open source software and hardware Samsung and Xiaomi would still be the top selling manufacturers because they have all the factories, resources and money. Sure, individuals and small businesses can still make their own shit, but the big corporations can always make sure that they make devices faster and cheaper, just like they currently can.
Copyleft - a world where everyone is forced to tell the truth. Copyright - a world where everyone is forced to remain silent. Both extremes are shit.

I agree that copyright should be abolished for everything but maybe art, but I still believe that the code/schemata should be released for anything that is going to be sold or interacted by customers. It is fine not to disclose the modifications you've made IF you're going to keep it to yourself or your say, institution, and it will never interact with the outside world, directly or indirectly. This is probably my biggest gripe with GPL, but it is probably this way because of slimy little fucks who will find a way out of this in court. I don't believe you can be sued for GPL'd stuff that you've modified but kept for yourself, though.

While I agree that it doesn't force competitiveness, transparency is also very important: a common man should be allowed to see what shit goes into the stuff he buys, and there should be nothing designed specifically to stand in his way of say, changing his operating system on the device he bought. GPL also helps by making people less dependant on companies by giving everyone a fair shot at making or bettering the stuff that they have.

I agree that copyleft is an extreme, but it is a lot closer to the ideal than anything else. It is however a bandaid, a shove in the right direction.

so you just assumed that the facebook distro contains stolen gpl code. nothing to prove that just a feeling you have. please rescind your comment then.

your thinking would tend to lead to proprietary solutions for the sake of capitalization user

>still believe that the code/schemata should be released for anything that is going to be sold or interacted by customers.
I agree, but don't think laws should force this. The customer should have common sense and mostly use/buy open source and confirmed to be safe stuff. But we shouldn't prevent people from using proprietary or malicious stuff if they want to. People who care about source would still use OSS products and there's nothing preventing open source from existing in a world without copyright/left. Since food already has regulations that require used materials to be listed, we could just force software and hardware providers to list what their products are doing (not in the shape of obscure privacy policies and terms of use), asking for permissions in Android (and recently Linux and Windows) is a good start and simple enough for people to understand.
>transparency is also very important
>a common man should be allowed to see what shit goes into the stuff he buys, and there should be nothing designed specifically to stand in his way of say
Agreed, it is preferable especially if the product can be used to infringe the user's life or rights/freedoms. Still, a lot can be done without access to the source code.
However, while testing if software is at least potentially malicious is easy, the problem is software as a service like social media and IMs, for example. In these cases the users need to trust their providers. This would also be the case even if the software is fully open source because it's difficult to tell what's running on the main server, or in the case of P2P networks what's running on other people's computers and if they're tracking you by logging your activity. Since literally everything is being pushed away from our computers into the cloud the freedom that libre software and hardware provide is shrinking.

(cont)
>there should be nothing designed specifically to stand in his way of say, changing his operating system on the device he bought
I hear Germany will ilegalize installing custom firmware on routers. It's really sad. ARM still doesn't have a universal BIOS so custom ROMs are still utter shit for android and other ARM devices. Smartphones are made of glass and the number of parts that are trivial to replace has become 0 for the majority of devices. The "right to repair" movement is good but it shouldn't even be a thing because people should be able to repair their own property without corporate intervention and sabotage. Fuck this world.

And this is why I believe that stuff like GPL is important, but we need a similar thing that covers privacy more directly. We need to teach the people that they can have better (performance, privacy, etc.), we need to teach them to help themselves and eachother and we also need to teach them that one should have tons of baskets for their eggs, not one or three. It's a band aid like I said, and would ideally promote the values of transparency as well as repairability, customizability, etc. so that a society that promotes these (and more) can exist without intervention of lawmakers. It is nearly the opposite today, where people are literally consuming phones and software. Copyleft would in the best case shape society that would then shape a better market, instead of trying to change the market directly. Having a good society is hard though and thus we're having this discussion.
>providers to list what their products are doing
>a lot can be done without access to the source code.
Technically yes, but at one point it boils down to trusting someone. We could need several independant bodies that verify the source code before it is released as a proprietary product, but that would mean spending a lot of funds on another few links in the chain that can potentially break.
>In these cases the users need to trust their providers.
This is where I can also find agreement with Stallman: It's still someone else's computer. Methods of decentralization, as well as open sourcing the software and enabling the creation and use of your own servers are important things for combating this. For those who are listening on the lines themselves: at least for metadata, you can't really do anything without a government intervening, and they want to listen as well.

Humanity needs to grow for a while before we can take off the shackles we've donned ourselves. Until then, we need to make sure they don't get welded shut.

food is a terrible example. thats like downloading a web browser and it saying 'made with c and rust'