GPLv3 is a bad license. Basically it’s slavery and I’m not a communist hippie.
Fuck freetards.
GPLv3 is a bad license. Basically it’s slavery and I’m not a communist hippie.
Fuck freetards.
Other urls found in this thread:
github.com
gnu.org
gnu.org
twitter.com
how is it slavery
Use a chad license that puts your code in the public domain and only suggests that you keep your source code open. Kopdl is real freedom
github.com
>Stupid g-g-goy!! You should give your work away for free!!! Not doing so is communism, and anti-semitic.
GPLv3 does not force you to give away your work for free. It allows and encourages profit. See here: gnu.org
the premise of the license is intellectually dishonest. a lot of people who make end-user applications will avoid anything with GPL for legal reasons, so GPL projects miss out on a lot of contributions. maybe a shithub project is a couple of hundred lines of code, why should you give out your millions of lines in return? and people who run servers or use the software internally can just take the code and run without having to share anything. it's flawed and imbalanced as to who it benefits and as to who it does not benefit.
you have to provide the source code for free.
>GPLv3 does not force you to give away your work for free
Fuck you, read my post again you stupid piece of shit. I literally said that making your code public domain is giving it away for free. GPLv3 at least ensures that contributions are given back to the community. Fuck you, you illiterate fuck.
No, you don't.
No, you don't, try actually reading the license
the license forces you to give out the source as soon as you sell 1 copy.
your post made my nipples erect
Yes, to the person that buys the copy, for a fee.
>selling a copy means that you have to provide the copy to the buyer
Yeah, and?
and then they give it to everyone else
and your business is ruined
have a nice day and remember you're homeless now
no normal consumer is going to pay the entire cost of development for one copy. once the first copy is sold, the source is out there, you insufferable kikes. see , you can't refute it. public domain is superior if you actually want to benefit the overall community instead of jewing the system like you're doing.
>2011+8
>not being a communist hippie freetard
ISHYGDDT
Now you are moving the goalposts.
>no normal consumer is going to pay the entire cost of development for one copy. once the first copy is sold, the source is out there,
Only the original GPL code and any derivative code of it. You can slap on any license you want on your own work, as long as it isn't in violation of the original work.
>public domain is superior if you actually want to benefit the overall community instead of jewing the system like you're doing.
But public domain is literally giving away for free, which you just fucking said is bad????
your part and the GPL part has to be distinctly different programs, otherwise you're not legally in the clear to use the GPL code without making your code free as well.
gnu.org
>But public domain is literally giving away for free, which you just fucking said is bad????
you're the ones arguing for """"""""""""""""free"""""""""""""""" code, but you're kikes for promoting this marxist solution that doesn't work in the real world
>not a communist
Stop using any form of copyright
>that doesn't work in the real world
Worked for Torvalds.
>your part and the GPL part has to be distinctly different programs
No, that's not what the license says though. It simply cannot be derivative work. There's stuff like LGPL that solves the issue with linking free libraries.
>you're the ones arguing for """"""""""""""""free"""""""""""""""" code
Free as in freedom, not as in gratis. You pay for it with your own contribution and hard work, instead of money.
How is your business ruined? You still have the licence and the original distributer. People who will want to support the developer or don't have money problems would still buy from you.
You could also host the source code online and just sell the binaries. Most people won't want to compile the program themselves and when you've got a good modern website where they can buy the program for a reasonable price they will.
>public domain is literally giving away for free
You can get paid before releasing a product or charge for the service of downloading.
linux is used in servers, and that's fine because servers can run any GPL code they want without having to share it, but GPL sucks for end user applications, you don't have proper alternatives to photoshop, sony vegas, etc etc
You're the one arguing it should be given away for free as in free beer, with no strings attached whatsoever (aka public domain). GPL proponents at least want to retain control over their work. You're the kike here, we can all see your nose poking out.
Who cares whether the source code is out there? People could still buy it from you and if you're the main developer and keep the program updated, why wouldn't they buy it from you?
Maybe people scarce on money but otherwise I don't see a problem.
See Unlike public domain, the GPL retains the copyright of the original work and requires "payment" in the form of contributions that benefit the community. Only a jew would argue that people should just throw away the rights to their own work. Why are you being so jewish, user? Shouldn't people be allowed to control their own work?
Idiot detected
That isnt how the licences work
>linux is used in servers
It's also used on toasters and mobile phones.
you don't retain control over your work when some company uses it internally on their systems, it's a deeply flawed license that screws developers who make end-user applications, if they were to use your code they would be incentivized to help maintain it since they're actually using it even if the software they're selling is proprietary
How do you enforce this licenses? How do you adopt them? It is enough to copy-paste such license in your code to be lawer-proof? Is there a real case where some GPLtard hire a lawer to defend his code? How do you know some jewtard is jewing your code if the jewcode is privative?
i'm talking about developers who make proprietary end-user applications, there is only one linus torvalds in the world, you couldn't realistically replicate his level of financial success
>you don't retain control over your work when some company uses it internally on their systems
This doesn't even make any sense.
>it's a deeply flawed license that screws developers who make end-user application
>if they were to use your code they would be incentivized to help maintain it since they're actually using it
Which is why Linux is seeing contributions from companies like Google, IBM, Oracle, Microsoft, HP, Intel and Nvidia, whereas Sony hasn't contributed a single line of code to FreeBSD and Apple hasn't contributed any code to FreeBSD in over a decade and a half.
BSD licenses don't incentivise giving back, it only allows the original authors to be cucked by corporations that use their hard work without giving anything back. The GPL prevents this.
Go away, you fucking jewish shill. Your boundless greed is not welcomed here.
for the slave freedom seems like slavery
and in a way it is, you change certainty with the unknown, security with danger
>proprietary end-user applications
Proprietary software is cancer. Why are you depriving users of their freedoms?
>you're not allowed to sell a copy of a proprietary technology just because it's virtual not physical
>just give us the source for free, comrade
kys
>Is there a real case where some GPLtard hire a lawer to defend his code?
D-Link was successfully sued in german courts for using Linux on their stuff.
>How do you know some jewtard is jewing your code if the jewcode is privative?
Reverse engineering and static binary analysers can detect it.
There's examples of GPL licensed end-user applications that are financed just fine. Go ask Ton Roosendaal about it.
The thing with GPL and the idea behind it is that it's also bit of an aggressive license not just a defensive one. It's goal is to advocate for free software, or actually the extinction of proprietary software.
It's been effective at spreading free and open source to the level where we can have freedom respective operating systems for our devices.
What you're doing is cucking for capitalists.
>hurr durr they can't use GPL code because the application they want to sell is basically just some GPL program with a proprietary interface on it.
>hurr durr these people should have the freedom to make easy cash by adding maleware to GPL licensed programs
You're a fucking moron. We already established that GPL'd code is sold, but the price is your contributions in terms of labour and not money. It's free as in freedom, not free as in free beer. Also, you keep talking about the developer's rights. But the GPL is not for developers, it's for protecting the fucking END-USERS you keep rambling about, from predatory EULAs and proprietary licenses.
>There's examples
not many
and you're being intellectually dishonest by not acknowledging that there is a (very big) place in the market for proprietary applications
>not many
Sure, but the original claim was that the GPL does not work. It clearly does.
>own work
.... to an existing project made by the work of someone else who chose to license it GPL
It's not like the person is working from scratch, if so he could give it the license he wants.
>It's goal is to advocate for free software, or actually the extinction of proprietary software.
yeah and this is fucking insane and a lot of people don't want to have anything to do with GPL
>What you're doing is cucking for capitalists.
yikes >>>/leftypol/
>just give me your code for free!!!! Gimme gimme gimme gimme!!!!!!
>what do you mean I have to share my contributions, fuck you you communist!!!!!
With jews you lose.
Your software can be composite, consisting of multiple parts. Some GPL'd (or LGPL'd), while other work could be proprietary or something else entirely. Stop spreading the misconception that GPL somehow is a virus that infects everything, it only applies to original work and derivates of it.
>lot of people don't want to have anything to do with GPL
We don't give a fuck about those people. Literal billion dollar companies both use and contribute to GPL software. Some half-jewish mutt in the middle of bumfuck nowhere is irrelevant.
gnu.org
>You cannot incorporate GPL-covered software in a proprietary system.
>The substantive part is this: if the two programs are combined so that they become effectively two parts of one program, then you can't treat them as two separate programs. So the GPL has to cover the whole thing.
your post just further validates the view that GPLv3 is a bad license
>what is LGPL
>what is proprietary userspace programs being bundled with a free GPL linux kernel on routers and mobile phones
The niggers at FSF will say a bunch of things that aren't true in reality. There's a reason why Google can run proprietary software on their Android phones.
Why do you care so much, just use whatever the fuck there is and roll with it
I don't disagree. GPLv2 is a good licence, GPLv3 is not good and too encompassing. See tivoisation.
LGPL =/= GPLv3
those proprietary userspace programs can't use GPL code themselves
>You cannot incorporate GPL-covered software in a proprietary system
>Microsoft just incorporated the GPL-licensed Linux kernel into their proprietary Windows system
GPLv3 is shit
Nobody uses GPLv3 in real life, stop moving the goalpost.
>those proprietary userspace programs can't use GPL code themselves
Obviously, but that wasn't my argument now was it? My literal argument is that you can sell a bundle of programs, some proprietary and some free/GPL'd. The very existence of Android phones with custom vendor software proves this.
>yeah and this is fucking insane and a lot of people don't want to have anything to do with GPL
It's not insane, it's just the most efficient way to rapidly make improvements in technology. You as a person will always have the freedom to make proprietary shit but we need to make sure as a collective species that everyone has access freedom respecting alternatives. Otherwise we can become part of a authoritarian proprietary matrix, especially now when they're working on machine learning and ai.
Imagine Google developing a very advanced self improving AI, it gets all the data feeds from all the different android devices, perhaps even biometrics from smartwatches and shit. Software with exposed source code is important. If you're against it then you're against the best interest of yourself and humanity, aka brainwashed.
>yikes >>>/leftypol/
Fuck off brainlet.
i'm just triggered by the fact that /dpt/ and so-called industry experts say you should use libraries for everything ("don't reinvent the wheel"), but when you look for libraries you have to wade through them on sjwhub and they're like a few simple functions that took maybe a weekend to make with an overly restrictive license
Still sounds like a weekend less work for you, so what's the problem.
>I'm just triggered I can't use other people's work for free/gratis
I bet you'd vote Sanders/AOC, wouldn't you?
But if the program isn't just using the library as the main program you can still use it. Just give some credit and add a link to the original source code of the library.
No, that's communism REEEEEEE!!!
I license my software as GPL just to make people mad.
Then you either roll your own in a weekend and learn something from the experience or accept that using their libraries will make your code GPL. If the license isn’t compatible with your needs, then it simply isn’t the right wheel for you.
>not forking BSD-licensed projects and relicensing them with the GPL
Get on my level.
I will. Fuck BSD-lets.
If you link against GPL code, yours is GPL no matter how small a role it played in yours. LGPL gives a bit more leeway since you can create a barrier through dynamic linking.
I usually try to sneak in a relicense in commits/pull-requests upstream too.
Where is my freedom to take away you freedom, goY?
this
I took it and turned it into my freedom. Freedom denied.
What's so bad about communism? Better than a bunch of rich psychos being in control.
What's so bad at having the best interest for common people in mind than some dude who just want to make money and exploit there userbase?
>Better than a bunch of rich psychos being in control.
Have you seen Venezuela, China, Soviet and North Korea? A bunch of rich psychos being in control is literally the modus operandi for communist states.
>acting against the free market
>best interest for common people
yiiiiiiiikes
>use a part of software and modify it
>then you have to share also all other 2 million lines of code of your program
this is fucking stupid, the point of GPL is to protect free software, not to jew others into creating jew software.
That's why it's paradoxical to have those rules in GPL.
>"Free for everyone*"
>((*everyone that is willing to share everything he uses with that particular suftware, not just the modifications to the free part))
lmao, Linus is right. v3 is dishonest
>Have you seen Venezuela, China, Soviet and North Korea?
Being anti imperialist isn't easy.
Intellectual property is against the free market free software licenses are using the established intellectual property laws to battle against it. You're just too much of a brainlet to understand the 4d chess that's being played by hackers all around the globe. Read some books.
this, GPLv3 encourages people to NOT contribute to free software.
Which is fucking stupid.
Protect free is fine.
But trying to jew others into doing the same thing with their code it's stupid. "I'll give this piece of shit to you if you give me your car", of course nobody will take it and help back to turn your shit into something. Instead look proton, that's am example where v3 would have been fucking bad for open source.
Because steam would have then make Steam and games open source, which they just fucking can't. They just need wine to make proton, and GPL v2 is fine and protects the wine project, they give back the source of proton.
If it had v3 they would just say fuck you and they would have never tried to make shit work in linux, or they would have made their own closed source solution.
Isn't not forced therefore it's not communism.
You can license one of your projects as GPL 3 or choose not to.
It's your choice.
You can also capitalise off GPL 3.0 software if you listen to the 4 basic freedoms.
Therefore it's not communism.
I can sell a cd full of GPLv3 software for $999999 as long as I distribute the source with it.
>hurr durr I want to create something but I'm a greedy Jew and don't want to spend a little bit of more money to create a proprietary alternative of this GPL licenced library, why are these hippies not giving there shit away for free to me?
>hurr durr isn't that what they mean with free software, the freedom to save money and create some proprietary maleware for stupid customers to become rich and shit?
lmao, are you stupid? Do you even understand the reasons why people make and use free software? Have you even read and listened to Richard Stallman and others. Seriously I don't know what your problem is.
Is it the word 'free' that you're confused about, or rather 'freedom' because Richard Stallman has explained what he means with freedom. If so then this whole discussion is just about semantics.
This is the same guy who complains when a 50 lines of code program isn't provided as a pre-compiled binary for him in the repos
>communism is the restriction of freedom
Seriously why is everyone so stupid about politics, fucking Jow Forums has rotted everyones brain here
that's not an argument to force people into your ideology, and with how it was previously described v3 is dishonest.
Fuck off newfag, gnu hasn't been good since quite a while. You're just jumping into the bandwagon pretty late with your copypaste replies
>I can sell a cd full of GPLv3 software for $999999 as long as I distribute the source with it.
but no one will buy it. it's like if you had the coca-cola recipe but weren't allowed to sell coca-cola for $1 a bottle because you used one """"free"""" ingredient.
Well normally i license my projects with MIT but if i dont want my code to be used in proprietary software ill license it as GPL. Im not sure wheres the problem
Wouldn't exactly call China and soviet anti-imperialist either, considering how they expanded into neighbouring countries and declared them part of themselves.
meant this guy.
>who would pay for binaries when I have the source code lel
>WTF SOMEONE BETTER COMPILE THIS FUCKING ESOTERIC PROGRAM I FOUND ON GITHUB FOR FREE RIGHT NOW OR IM GOING TO WINDOWS
he contradicts himself on his own terms retard.
Free to manipulate and redistribute has nothing to do with it being able to be used with proprietary software.
And if somebody uses it with proprietary software they still have to give back the code with v2.
The stupid faggot is you thinking other people are just misunderstanding a word, your problem is you can't even read what I'm sating because you are choking in Stallman's dick
You're missing the point.
It's not to say is there a market or not for it.
The point being it's not communism because I can privately profit off of it as long as I follow the rules.
Why is this so hard to understand?
Communists literally want to abolish private property and forcefully redistribute wealth, so fuck yeah it is anti-liberty.
This.
China expanding into india/tibet/southern sea.
Russian annexing konigsberg and crimea
companies who use it for themselves on their own servers as if it were proprietary software can still use it because they don't redistribute the software to the public. so it creates an imbalance where you're potentially benefiting those huge corporations while stopping small independent developers from using it in proprietary software for normal consumers to use and benefit from.
Communism is abolishing of private property and rights for the good of the group.
You are not allowed to have private profit ie private/free market.
The money is earned by a communist production so it is redistributed back into the production process.
>commies can't even recite their own principles now
OOOF
I wasn’t thinking about modern day Russia, but about the Soviet Union basically invading the Baltic countries and Poland and Czechoslovakia.
Time for a free helicopter ride :^)
Just do what Amazon does and sell x-as-a-service. The code runs on the server and you never actually distribute the binary, so you don't need to release the source code.