Isn't the BSD license objectively more free...

Isn't the BSD license objectively more free, since it allows you to distribute derivative works under any license you want?

GPL is literally less free

Attached: 1555586838103.png (650x450, 128K)

For programmers yes. But for end user GPL is more free.

for end user, BSD benefits them more. Case in point the Switch having the freedom to use BSD-licensed work, saving themselves the time from developing their own in-house operating system or paying licenses for a windows-based OS.

The right to enslave people enables slavery; the opposite of freedom.

Somalia is more free because you can legally become an actual pirate (assuming you live to 15).

The only right the GPL denies you is the "right" to deny rights to others. Which you shouldn't have and shouldn't do to begin with. The only argument for permissive licenses is that they let you exploit others by making the software nonfree.

The only thing the BSD license is good for is for companies that want to profit off the free labour of the community.

You are correct. We live in a weird world where people think they are entitled to other peoples work so they can potentially deprive them of a living and the GPL facilitates that.

BSD is the only true freedom I've seen.

GPL will make more sense when income and money become unnecessary which is likely never.

This

GPL was intended to eliminate proprietary software.

So would legalizing slavery make society "more free"?
Based

Attached: 1543279223817.png (1069x1081, 812K)

GPL is freerer under the transitive property

So did it? Licenses do not eliminate proprietary software, better free software does. Stallman cult is based on some idiotic assumptions about reality, only a programmer could come up with them.
pure schizo

GPL appears less free because it's literally designed to spread like a virus, and its ultimate goal is to eliminate propietary software

Yeah, but is the point of BSD to provide core-utilities the end user will never even hear about for free while someone hauls in the cash?

>designed to spread like a virus
>spreads like an ant fart in the Grand Canyon

/threat

wat?

Well, yes. Because it is a virus, everyone makes sure to keep away from any and all infected objects, thus avoiding infection.

Morality is a spook. The reality is that the "free software free society" mantra is a huge miss because what the quote should say: "in a free society software is free". But we aren't living in a communist utopia, nor do we live in a capitalist free society where there's universal basic income yada-yada where each man can devote his time to what he believes to truly benefit society. Thing is that in the current world free software is just a way for companies to undermine other companies and stall competition (since in most cases free-software is free as well), no one really cares about free software for reasons other than propaganda. Although the single man has escaped nature, the corporate world is a dog eat dog world and not using proprietary licenses which the state allows and supports simply means getting left behind while your competitors use these licenses for their own advantage. Even supposedly free-software loving and using companies like IBM are generating their revenue through proprietary means and even the pinnacle corp of free-software, Red Hat, obfuscated their code just so they can hide their implementation the best they can. If you are truly a free software shop, it means being umbilical corded to proprietary companies to survive and relying on the goodwill of the people to donate more than a single peso, like with Blender or Mozilla. Pic related. I want to believe in the free software movement, but it is harder with each day. True change starts with legislation, not with FUD and fearmongering + guilt tripping users into using free, oftentimes worse alternatives. I've yet to see a single free-software project which innovated instead of merely reproduced proprietary inventions. "GNU is not UNIX" go figure. Also don't even make me mention that you choose to enter into a license contract, it is never forced on you thus you're not stripped of any rights essentially.

Attached: 1556192038893.jpg (1920x1080, 506K)

Of course it is. It was specifically made to prevent sneaky, entitled brats to use that work to steal other people's freedom.
I swear the """permissive""" license meme is being pushed by corporations to get free labor.

BSD is the edgyteen anarchocapitalist version of free.

This is a good thing.

>spread like a virus
The GPL for sure is Stallmans greatest hack.

Attached: 1554828406594.jpg (1280x1397, 219K)

>the "right" to deny rights to others.
Linux enterprise giants capitalize on GPL software anyway, there are no obstacles because the point of GPL is not a set of rules for commerce but policies regarding closed-source, capital can amass itself with perfectly FOSS GPLv.3 software as well, and Linux corporations can make sure their money will NOT go into the original community developers' pockets, no matter what licenses they boast. GPL is intellectually limited and is not aware of economics of the real world.