GPL BTFO

>MIT restricts your freedom
GPL restricts your freedom to do whatever you want with your software. GPL is the most restrictive license I know apart from the proprietary ones.

It's not FUD. It's from a study. Here's another study, done by GitHub in 2015
pic related
github.blog/2015-03-09-open-source-license-usage-on-github-com/

Attached: github.png (325x405, 28K)

>Implying MIT is restrictive

Attached: IMG_20190603_141830.jpg (639x453, 36K)

MIT, Apache and BSD is for cucks. GPLv3 is the only way of not getting assfucked by corporations.

Yes it is, GPL only prevents Western companies to get more competitive because China don't fucking care about GPL and just use it without contributing back

Even Linux hates GPL v3. It's communism. Super restrictive.

Fuck off MIT nigger
youtube.com/watch?v=1jDBhdMMhWM

>GPL is about capitalism
no. It's against that.

China doesn't give a single fuck about anything, they unironically use LICENSE files as tp

Meanwhile you suck Jew cocks and have to hide behind a VPN to torrent but China is the bad guy

I'm not watching your jew shit
MIT will always be freer than GPLvX, and there's nothing you can do about it

Attached: 1548185764104.jpg (448x635, 32K)

>furfag
>incest
seems about right for a mit nigger

>antisemitism is funny
fucking kys.

>ITT: corporate shills defending their right to profit from free code without giving anything back to the community

lol gay

This song disses GPL and Stallman
openbsd.org/lyrics.html#43

cuckBSD is a corporation friendly license.
That's why *BSD OSes starve each year for funds, despite the fact that Apple, Sony, Nintendo and various other companies use their shit.

This song is good
youtube.com/watch?v=yVLK3wwtCfE

Its actually not. If anything it promotes competition since it prevents unfair advantages. It shifts the focus from who did it first to who does it best.

>Even Linux
fuck off retard

gpl at its core is a voluntary contract that would work in even the most libertarian societies

How can one man be so based...

Hypocrites has spoken
There are many new laws"

Hypocrites appears
"Puffy!
You must obey my new rules!"

"First rule one dictates
You cannot give your code away"

"And rule two dictates
You must give it to me
So I can give it away properly for free"

"The list goes on of course
But for traders this is all you need"

"This is madness!
He has lost his mind!
This defies the first law of free trade
Rule zero came before this rule one
Freedom means you cannot dictate to anyone"

Then Hypocrites goes mad.

Attached: index.jpg (225x225, 20K)

FreeBSD is fine funding wise, just check their quarterly reports. Other BSDs are not used by anyone, that might contribute to the lack of their funds.

>gpl at its core is a voluntary contract
gpl is a double ended contract.
you give your code, but you still have rights on your work.
Plus you won't be doing free work for someone else's business.
I think that the most fair approach is that of QT. QT tells you that if you are going to use QT for OSS, then it's GPL.
If you want to keep it closed source, then you have to pay for the license.
Fair and square.

No, u fuck of Satan. I meant Linus Torvalds. Linux, which IS what the kernel is called, is going to stay GPL 2.

>We kicked off the year with many individual and corporate donations, including donations and commitments from NetApp, Netflix, Intel, Tarsnap, Beckhoff Automation, E-Card, VMware, and Stormshield. We are working hard to get more commercial users to give back to help us continue our work supporting FreeBSD.

THIS, how can the rest of Jow Forums be so blind? BSD/MIT/APACHE IS ONLY PUSHED BY BIG COMPANIES SO THEY CAN HAVE THOUSAND OF HACKERS WORKING FOR THEM FOR FREE WITHOUT GIVING ANYTHING BACK (except for DRM locked devices!), WAKE FUCKING UP Jow Forums

cisco and other companies have a big part of openbsd inside their product, either if that's called openSSH or the kernel or any other part of the system. Yet, openBSD has funding problems every fucking year, despite making an OS that supports a billion dollar industry.
that's why it's bad to have your code under BSD, you won't get the credit, not even the minimal help needed to keep the project going.
There's a reason why the ecosystem behind Linux is irreplaceable, but every *BSD project can be continued behind any corporate closed doors.

Attached: licenses.jpg (1200x1500, 309K)

OpenBSD just got 300.000USD from ONE company.
Between 25000-50000 from Facebook.
Last year over 100.000USD (how much I don't know) from Handshake.
Between 50-100000 from Yandex.
Between 25-50000 from Microsoft. Probably as they use OpenSSH. Microsoft also adopted some mitigation tech in their kernel from OpenBSD. OpenBSD guys are glad about helping making computing more secure. A GPL tard would hate a company turning a profit with their code in the kernel.
Microsoft used

This only signifies that the OpenBSD foundation should fire the people responsible for their public relations.

So if a company used GPL code, they would have to fund that project? And don't think you understand GPL.

Samsung uses GPL code in their Smart TVs. Their own linux distro. Do they suddenly give lots of money to these projects? Do they have to because of GPL? Do they HAVE to give the proprietary code that they have in the OS away? No and no. You don't understand GPL or BSD.

Whats wrong with apache and mit vs gpl v 2?

>WITHOUT GIVING ANYTHING BACK
Except products we buy and enjoy

>you give your code, but you still have rights on your work.
>Plus you won't be doing free work for someone else's business.
you maintain copyright of your work (as you should) but the people using your gpl licenced work get the rights that you laid out in the gpl which aren't revocable, building your business around other peoples code isn't ideal though as they may stop updates or stop future updates being licenced under the gpl so you're stuck with an outdated version

I forgot the exact nuance with 'gplv2' 'gplv2 only' 'gplv2 or newer' but much of the linux kernel and its contributions are licenced under 'gplv2 only', even if linus wanted to relicence the linux kernel under gplv3 he'd need to get every person that has contributed to the kernel to agree to relicence their work under gplv3 also due to licence compatibility problems
the only way around this is if linus were to remove all the 'gplv2 only' code or rewrite it under a gplv3 licence

Attached: quick-guide-gplv3-compatibility.png (594x498, 24K)

>Between 25000-50000 from Facebook.
they're getting ripped off, facebook pay the linux foundation $500k a year

>We are working hard to get more commercial users to give back
they are working hard on the BSD software,
they are begging hard the corporations to throw them pennies.
Come fucking on. Apple, the infamous 1st billion dollar company, uses BSD kernel because they failed with their nextstep bullshit and they don't fully support that community.

wow, they got, ~$1mil? Debian 6.0 had a cost of around $15mil in order to get released... and that was years ago. I am not impressed.
that has nothing to do with public relations, or marketing. You are giving away your work for nothing, you are giving them the copyrights of your work, why would they even care about you? What kind of public relations make the corporations feel bad for stealing things?
You haven't understood how gpl works.
let's take amd for instance.
AMD had fglrx, an intermediate rendering interface with the kernel that was oss and then there was a bunch of guys who started making their own amd drivers ( ati back then).
So the years passed, 2013 came, amd was trying to keep fglrx competitive with novidia, but they had to keep pushing more and more people in the development. They finally took a glimpse at the oss community around their oss driver, they said fuck it and they released in the end of 2013 ~100k LOC along with low level documentation of their gpus.
What happened after that? AMD hired the 2-3 contributors of the oss radeon driver, everyone has their copyrights on the code, amd has them as employees, everything for amd gpus works out of the box because it ships with the kernel and I am completely happy with my amd gpu.
Similar shit happens with Redhat and loonix.
Redhat makes money off of loonix, so they went to torvalds and cut him, along with the other 5-10 top contributors a salary to continue providing them with a fine kernel so that they can get their customers happier.
even MS pays the linux foundation plus they contribute code.

This. GPL is basically communism, and that is not a good thing.

I really hope you're being ironic. Nothing prevents them from doing the same with the GPL. It's like people automatically assume that because a project is MIT that it's magically and automatically going to be exploited, but if it's GPL it's magically not going to be exploited and people are guaranteed to write their own code and ship it back to you.

In practice, this just isn't the case. Go around your home and I bet a bunch of products you have use GPL technology unmodified, and I guarantee the original author is seeing 0% of the profit, and since there's no change, no patches.

FREE software, of any kind is free software that people can use to benefit themselves without benefiting you. It's permitted in the GPL license, I can just take your project and sell it if I wanted to. People do this ALL THE TIME and have done so for a very long time.

I'm getting real sick of you imbeciles who have a problem with the very thing your chosen license allows. It's not ok when it happens to others but it's not mentioned when it happens to you. That's such a dishonest and ignorant stance.
>I like to write free software, but I don't want people to use it freely
Assheads.

samsung is a platinum member of the linux foundation, they give $500000 EVERY year.
linux takes atleast $10000000 EVERY year from 8 companies alone.
linuxfoundation.org/membership/

You wrote all that text to avoid the question, leaving a non-answer. The answer is no. Nothing would magically change, and CISCO wouldn't fund anything if they didn't have to. That's one of the principle pillars of FREE software. If you want to profit off of your code and you want to have finer grained control over who does what with it. The license you're looking for, is a proprietary one. When you make free software, you should consider it the world's software at the time you publish it to the world.
>but I don't like CISCO and I don't like people making money off of my work
Then don't write free software.

>building your business around other peoples code isn't ideal though as they may stop updates or stop future updates being licenced under the gpl so you're stuck with an outdated version
that's why gpl "forces" the company to pay back the developer for his or hers(male) work.

>unironically being a capitalist cuck

>Yet, openBSD has funding problems every fucking year, despite making an OS that supports a billion dollar industry.
The FSF gets all that funding and they can't even ship hurd. Each BSD project has a fraction of the funding and consistently makes projects that become defacto.
It's almost like good developers are good developers regardless of their salary.

Attached: 1400271554384.png (1024x768, 976K)

Welcome to the real world.

> A constitution that enforces freedom is communism
the absolute state of Jow Forums

Linus stated that it isn't going to be downgraded from GPL v2 to GPL v3 becaues he will not change HIS GPL 2 code to GPL 3. You can't get Linux over to GPL 3 without Linus' code.

>Conversion isn't going to happen.
>I don't think the GPL v3 conversion is going to happen for the kernel, since I personally don't want to convert any of my code.

He also strongly dislikes FSF
youtube.com/watch?v=bw58LZTuZjA

youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU

who are you again, because I replied to 4 posts back there.
anyhow, the purpose of GPL is not profit, but giving back to the community.
you give your code, the community supports you with bug fixes, bug reports and what not.
If and when your project becomes an essential part of a companies services, then they either have to ask you for proprietary license, e.g. QT, or they will opensource their code to add more to the community, e.g. AMD opensourcing their driver and making public their gpus' documentation, and might fund you to continue your work.
From every fucking aspect this is a win-win situation.

>My company's lawyers have decided that they don't want to let employees respect copyleft licenses, therefore MIT/BSD/etc is more free
Really sick of you shills drawing this false conclusion. That whole mentality is why web dev is total shit right now.

No, GPL allows profiting off the software.

The GPL is only considered "free" when they redefine half of English.
Sorry, I mean libre, GNU/freedom, and gratis.

Facebook probably doesn't use as much OpenBSD tech as they do Linux tech.
Maybe as thanks for LibreSSL or OpenSSH or something.

>Go around your home and I bet a bunch of products you have use GPL technology unmodified, and I guarantee the original author is seeing 0% of the profit, and since there's no change, no patches.
he mentioned that with bsd/mit you get drm locked (read: proprietary) devices back, if those devices are using gplv3 or newer they have to be open source and they cannot prevent end users from running modified versions of that software, the gpl licence is the only reason projects like ddwrt and openwrt can exist and they benefit the original developers even if not in a monetary sense
if you're going to take the position that gpl developers absolutely want contributions back then you have to look at the bigger picture of what happens when businesses use gpl code

Not surprising when corporations push the "MIT/BSD is more free" meme. They can profit from it, while they can't profit from GPL'd code unless they release it as free software as well.

BSD-style licenses are the best licenses for code you don't care about.

>all these commies hating on MIT
Truly the superior license

But you are wrong.
Apple uses their own kernel called XNU which they open sourced under APSL

the FSF doesn't get much funding at all.

It's not the GPL's fault english is a bad language. It's also not the GPL's fault your politicians and businessmen have overloaded the term "free" to mean the entire population being under 24/7 surveillance.

I know linus himself doesn't like the gpl v3, but:
>You can't get Linux over to GPL 3 without Linus' code.
what I'm saying is that you can't get linux over to gpl v3 with JUST linus, you need the consent of everybody else that contributed to the linux kernel
>He also strongly dislikes FSF
he dislikes the politics and attitude of the fsf but his goals are very much aligned with them, it's just stallman is grating and alienates huge swathes of people for the greater good while linus is fine with giving people a little leeway to do the right thing

the FSF doesn't have only hurd to develop and they won't ship hurd just to make 5 people happy.
funding hurd when linux is already here is plain stupid and a waste of funds.
the FSF has to fund projects like emacs, gcc, gdb, or they will fund 3rd party project that they think that they are important to the community, e.g. trannyboot. (not anymore though)
I'd be mad if they wasted resources on t(h)urd or any other meaningless project for the time being.

Such truth such digits

Attached: 3777084698_a7ef4bf328_b.jpg (683x1024, 116K)

But they DON'T HAVE TO BECAUSE OF LICENSE. They are not obliged to by the GPL, as they are not obliged to by MIT or BSD. So you point is mute. My point stands. If Linux was BSD they would still be Platinum members.

>If and when your project becomes an essential part of a companies services, then they either have to ask you for proprietary license, e.g. QT, or they will opensource their code to add more to the community
This is the exact crock of shit that everyone repeats and has no foundation in reality. Again it's a magical assumption. Just because you choose a specific license does not mean people are going to magically contribute back.
>but the license says they have to
No it doesn't. It says if you make changes and people request them you must publish them. There's no reason to believe people are going to be making meaningful patches let alone publishing them without ask. This is the norm, not the exception. CISCO is a prime example of this. People are focusing on the BSD licenses components and just neglecting the fact that it takes you 2 weeks to get an email of diffs back for all their GPL components. It's a burden more than anything else. Have fund sifting through them just to find out nothing is worth merging into mainline.

I'm sick of this fairydust being propagated. In practice, in this specific context, the GPL has no actual advantage as is being presented.

>won't ship hurd just to make 5 people happy.
It's certainly a mixed message.
>no the foundation is important! it's GNU/Linux
>actually something like a kernel isn't that important after all

Uh, sorry sweety. But free software isn't dying. Every license pictured in OP is free*.

*: And yes, Stallman agrees with me.

>that's why gpl "forces" the company to pay back the developer for his or hers(male) work.
No it doesn't. Have you read the GPL? I can sell products with all GPL software and not give anything back.

>In practice, in this specific context, the GPL has no actual advantage as is being presented.
the advantage is that they must release the code and can't hinder you from running modified versions
with mit/bsd you get your code in a proprietary windows driver with a nice 'thank you' copyright notice for your efforts

xnu derives from bsd4.4.
nextstep was a failure of an OS that couldn't scale well and it was abandoned.

here's from the freebsd wiki
>The XNU kernel used on OS X includes a few subsystems from (older versions of) FreeBSD, but is mostly an independent implementation. The similarities in the userland, however, make it much easier to port OS X code to FreeBSD than any other system. For example, both libdispatch (Grand Central Dispatch in Apple's marketing) and libc++ were written for OS X and worked on FreeBSD before any other OS.

Attached: asd.png (1024x777, 54K)

This year alone they released GCC 9, Emacs 26.2, and finally Guix 1.0.0.
I'd say they are doing their fair share of work.
Hurd is still in a half-finished state after years for a very simple reason: there is no need, neither technical nor legal, for it to be completed as of now.
Linux exists, it works and it's GPL'd.
Should the project take a radical turn, to the point of being incompatible with GNU, Hurd will likely start being seriously worked on again.

The proprietary companies are the ones alienating people, not RMS. They are the ones who make people sign legal agreements saying they must never share anything or help their neighbors.

It's telling though that Linus blames RMS for this instead of those companies. Have you seen who pays his salary?

>the advantage is that they must release the code
Again, what code? You're under the pretense that when someone forks your project, they're going to work on it. For the majority of projects, this is not a requirement. I can build a business off of a Linux machine, does it mean I am going to extend Linux? No. I profited from it, does it mean I must share my profits? No.
If I had chosen FreeBSD and done this, people would scream "exploitation! Theft!". When it's a GPL project, silence.

you don't get it, don't you?
gpl forces the corporations to either go with the gpl license, or create their own project from scratch.
nobody does the second so gpl forces the companies to comply with the gpl.
in the case of bsd, companies take the code and they never look back.... they look back only when the authors beg for money.

>It shifts the focus from who did it first to who does it best.
Fuck, the is-odd function I just wrote happens to have been previously GPL'd by yet another foot-eating hippie... AAAAAAAAAA

I agree with you and that's why "open source" as a development strategy is a crock of shit. The GPL is about giving the user freedom. Not about coming up with some convoluted way to trick other people into sending patches back to the original author.

>Apple, the infamous 1st billion dollar company, uses BSD kernel because they failed with their nextstep bullshit and they don't fully support that community.
>they don't fully support that community.
>Apple
They directly pay open source developer salaries

Attached: 1391475989632.png (768x1393, 298K)

>nobody does the second so gpl forces the companies to comply with the gpl.
It forces them to use MIT project, hence the rise.
>in the case of bsd, companies take the code and they never look back
As if it's any different from GPL. Nothing forces them to produce anything to give back in the first place.

>Again, what code? You're under the pretense that when someone forks your project, they're going to work on it.
no, you're under the pretence that the only way to contribute back is either with money or with code contributions
>I can build a business off of a Linux machine
please do, make it a good one, then I can go to other manufacturers and say 'hey this dipshit is releasing the source for his hardware, I consider this a feature, I'll now only buy your hardware if you release the source too', and I can hack and modify the hardware you put out because the gpl licence allows me to do this, this is the free society that the fsf is working towards and it isn't some far-fetched reality as I'm running a custom firmware on my router
it's interesting that you chose linux too since linux is *the* most successful gpl licenced product, driver companies *pay* linux to support their drivers that they in turn release under a gpl licence

when you profit off a product that contains binaries using GPL code and you are not releasing the code, then you'll get sued for IP theft.
nobody claims that you cannot sell or profit from gpl code, but if you make changes to that code, you have to provide sources for the changes.

you have to fix your picture and get some updates where apple contributes and why.

XNU:
>XNU is a hybrid kernel, containing features of both monolithic kernels and microkernels

Mach
>The basis of the XNU kernel is a heavily modified (hybrid) OSFMK 7.3 kernel.

BSD
> (BSD) part of the kernel provides the POSIX application programming interface (API, BSD system calls).

It's not a BSD kernel. Furthermore, they open sourced it, they could have had it proprietary if they wanted.

You either don't know what you're talking about, are underage/naive, or are being dishonest on purpose. Through any perspective, I can't continue this discussion. I'm confident that you know what I'm talking about and are spinning it on purpose. I just hope it's not self convincing.

>t. a neet who can't live without handouts from the system because he is lazy and has no useful skills
Who's really a slave here? You're a bottom feeding crustacean nigger living off his scrap, user.
Pic related - it's you sucking gibs from the system.

Attached: IMG_20181203_193352.jpg (488x347, 23K)

This is the worst argument every time because "BSD" is ambiguous. You have to agree on what counts. Origin, percentage of code from origin, userland vs kernel code, etc.
You can consider Solaris a BSD or not in the same way.

No. I could create a proprietary OS with Linux as the foundation and not give anything back, neither code (if I don't add code to the GPL'ed code) nor money.

So do many other companies. But for every open source developer at Apple who is trying to give a user freedom, there is a proprietary developer who is trying to figure out how to vendor lock users and take their freedom away. I like how you conveniently ignore that for the sake of your argument.

>As if it's any different from GPL
you are completely wrong.
companies cannot, in the first place, steal gpl code, without legal consequences.

you'll end up in jail.

As evidenced GPL projects are worth avoiding for the people involved alone.
>greedy
>controlling
>hypocritical
>actively choose to waste developer and lawyer time
These people don't care about software or progress, they care about wasting time for as many people as possible to push a tyrannical system.

I could "add" code as separate modules (as done in the Linux kernel) and my code would stay proprietary.

What a narrow minded understanding of the world. Not everyone respects copyright "law". Go look at all the Russian, Chinese, etc. GPL violations

I'm not the only one replying or having a conversation with you, if you can't reply to each post on its own individual merits then what the fuck are you doing on Jow Forums
the gpl v3 guarantees the freedoms of end users to run modified versions of the software on hardware devices you sell and companies generally allowed this freedom on v2 (tivo excluded), I own *many* devices that are still supported by community efforts because of the freedom the gpl provides, pretending like a company that uses gpl but doens't provide any code contributions is equivalent to bsd/mit is blatantly dishonest and wrong