Remember to use a BSD license for your next software project. GPL will hinder adoption in commercial environments

Remember to use a BSD license for your next software project. GPL will hinder adoption in commercial environments.

> We don't need the GPL anymore. It's based on the belief that open source software is weak and needs to be protected. Open source would be succeeding faster if the GPL didn't make lots of people nervous about adopting it. – Eric S. Raymond

> A less publicized and unintended use of the GPL is that it is very favorable to large companies that want to undercut software companies. In other words, the GPL is well suited for use as a marketing weapon, potentially reducing overall economic benefit and contributing to monopolistic behavior... [the GPL can] present a real problem for those wishing to commercialize and profit from software. – Bruce Montague

Attached: 1280px-BSD_wordmark.svg.png (1280x597, 41K)

>GPL will hinder adoption in commercial environments.
Good. I would rather not have commercial support for most things. The moment somebody invests money into a project they expect something in return and before long you end up an unpaid employee of Apple just like the FreeBSD devs. There's a reason people call it the cuck license, you get cucked by corporations for using it.

Greatest programmer in the world.

Attached: torvaldsbsd.png (620x413, 272K)

>GPL will hinder adoption in commercial environments.
Good.
I use the BSD license, but fuck commercial environments.

Commercialized software = never contribute any code back. BSD = working for free, fuck off, kike.

If people will only adopt my stuff if its permissively licensed, their plan is obviously to lock it up behind a nonfree license. If they weren't going to do that, they wouldn't care about whether it was copyleft or not. Anyway, if that's their plan, I'd rather them not use it. The fact that the GPL interferes with that business model is a feature, not a bug. Why should nonfree software be allowed to be a viable business model?

>GPL will hinder adoption in commercial environments.
It doesn't. Perhaps you meant "proprietary".
That said, copyleft licenses are the only licenses that make sense.

What has ESR actually done apart from poisoning the free software concept with the "open source" abomination?

Agreed. The only people who complain about the GPL are the people the GPL was made to piss off in the first place, which is a good thing.

Don't delude yourself into thinking that GPL forces companies to contribute back, they will just do a useless code dump somewhere and tell you to get fucked.

>gpl will hinder our commercial adoption of your software, so release your code in bsd/mit so we can put it into our proprietary commercial application with no hassle
>it'll be good for you!

The GPL doesn't force anyone to contribute back, this is a common misconception.
However, you can't re-release it (or oarts of it) under a nonfree license, while non-copyleft licenses allow this.

So better not hold them accountable at all, right?

Plenty of companies have realized that upstreaming their code is a great way to save cash, only a handful of them are still stuck in the old ways e.g. Nvidia

I will use GPL because I'm not a cuck and don't want some Silicon Valley cunts to steal my work and make billions with it.

ONLY reason GNU/Linux is successful in its own right while BSDs (except mac OS LOL) are irrelevant is the license difference

Word.

>if the GPL didn't make lots of people nervous about adopting it.
Oh no! Won't someone please think of the poor, poor tech giants!

Get to reality, even with GPL linux is more cucked than any BSD project

>what is freebsd

I don't care if there are a few trannies in the LKML. It's still a fully usable OS that has the same level of hardware compatibility as Windows. Good luck getting BSD to work with any modern Nvidia card for example.

If not for the GPL, Red Hat would have just launched a closed source fork of GNU/Linux and we wouldn't have a fully functional FOSS OS.

The BSD license is great for code you don't care about.
—Linus Torvalds

Dont use BSD if you dont want to get cucked by Apple or Sony.

Use the glorious GPL license so you only get cucked by Red Hat, Samsung, IBM, Intel, and the military industrial complex using Linux supercomputers to build nuclear bombs,

The fucking point of GPL is that people DON'T WANT THEIR CODE ADOPTED IN COMMERCIAL ENVIRONMENTS, YOU FUCKING CORPORATE SHILL. BSD is your fucking wet dream -- software made for you for free that you can co-opt into your shitty goddamn non-free corporate nightmare bloated software and not have to give anything back.

Fuck you and fuck the *BSD license.

BSD people are like flat earthers. You wonder why they're still around for no good reason.

>The fucking point of GPL is that people DON'T WANT THEIR CODE ADOPTED IN COMMERCIAL ENVIRONMENTS

Attached: 1544712860937.jpg (250x185, 7K)

This.

>COMMERCIAL
GPL is perfectly acceptable to use in commercial software. In fact, that's one of the required software freedoms as defined by the FSF.
Proprietary != commercial.

Sorry, but I'm not a cuck.

/thread

>"muh code will be stolen by corporations and closed, GPL is the way to go"
lmao, what code? you Jow Forumstards don't even have stars on github

He wrote a book years ago praising Free software.

Companies love GPL. It's like outsourcing but you get to act like you're doing it for the good of everyone instead of just profiting off of free labor.

>he doesn't use GPL+commercial dual licensing
>corporations either pay you or improve your software for free so you can sell to other corporations better
You are cucked by corporations anyway if you can't collect licensee fees

Attached: IMG_6062.png (595x842, 245K)

>BSD cuck thread

can't they use gpl software without releasing the source? it's just a license for the code, not the binaries.
BSD license justs permits people to re release the code under a different license, while crediting the original.
or am I wrong? I've never uploaded code

>can't they use gpl software without releasing the source? it's just a license for the code, not the binaries.
They can _use_ it, of course, everyone can. They can also modify it and reuse it internally as they wish. But they can't re-release to the public a modified version, or another piece of software using GPL'd code, under a proprietary license. Doing so constitutes a license violation, as the GPL explicitly forbids it.
This practice, however, is allowed by BSD/MIT style licenses.

>
> GPL based on the belief that open source software is weak and needs to be protected
Whereas a BSD license ͟g͟u͟a͟r͟a͟n͟t͟e͟e͟s oss will be weak and unprotected.

>it's just a license for the code, not the binaries.
the licence dictates what you can do with the code, not releasing the source along with the binaries or upon request is a violation of that licence and you're going to get fucked in court for IP infringement

sure kid

You aren't fooling anyone, GPL hating Micro$oft.

Attached: artbsod.jpg (620x465, 71K)

>he wants to spoon feed the corporations with no guaranteed returns

Are you by any chance a masochist?

Attached: canvas-truck-custom.jpg (1024x937, 304K)

make like Jow Forums and don't write any code.