OpenBSD's Goals

if a project is already bsd licensed they cant you fucking moron

Learn how licenses work, retard.

you can relicense bsd licensed stuff whenever you want, you can even make it proprietary
guess why permissive licenses are called cuck licenses

Wrong. BSD doesn't have such restrictions.

Let's admit it - the only truly free licenses are public domain ones, or even none of them at all.

>Let's admit it - the only truly free licenses are
>public domain ones,
Proprietary software supporting cuck licenses
>or even none of them at all.
No licemse = copyright (you) = proprietary

No, that would be proprietary licenses, which the OpenBSD developers are totally fine with and seem to make no complaints about.

No restrictions on usage, no restrictions on modification, only minor restrictions on redistribution

BSD is the cuck license. It allows someone to take all of your work and restrict it.

The only circumstance I will contribute to non-GPL projects is if I'm being paid to do it. I won't give up my free time so that someone takes all of it, packages it in a closed system and sells it at a profit. Sony does exactly that with FreeBSD.

>Sony
>makes billions out of FreeBSD-based walled-garden vidya computers
>$0 in donations so far
Christ, even Microsoft donated to the FreeBSD Foundation.

The license doesn't even compel them to give the source changes back to FreeBSD or distribute the source code to whoever buys their computers.

Imagine defending this level of cuckery. Of course, it is a form of freedom to give your work away with not even a promise of reciprocity attached to it. It's just dumb.

Underrated post.

Attached: images.jpg (265x190, 6K)

The only people who are against copyleft licenses are exactly the people the GPL was created to piss off. Hence, it's a good thing.

The anti-GPL shills are either paid directly by FAAMG or dream of being a FAAMG employee.

What's dumb here is you getting worked up over what other people prioritize.

Someone should make a *BSD variant released under GPL. Maybe fork FreeBSD or OpenBSD.

Call it GPLBSD.

not true.
you cant keep the changes you make to the code to yourself or make it proprietary like you can do with bsd code. that is a restrictions
agreed

BSD is not a stable license. It can get code hidden proprietary code or even turned into GPL. GPL is a stable license. Once it's GPL it's GPL.

The debate around GPL matters a lot to me and my work.

I see the whole debate as a discussion around reciprocity vs. freedom. The disagreement comes from how much you think each of those values is worth.

This. BSD is Anarchy. GPL is Freedom.

WHERE'S MY FREEDOM TO TAKE AWAY YOUR FREEEDOM?
> GPL is the absolute devil
> i'm completely ok if it's made proprietary tho

>release good code and tell everyone they can use it
>people reuse it in proprietary projects instead of making new dogshit implementations
>somehow bad and cucky
its like you like running shit bloated programs instead of based openSSH and related good programs

GPLed applications can be shipped with a proprietary OS. LGPL libraries can be used in proprietary applications.

Good post.

You cannot "re-license" BSD code if you're not the copyright holder. What you can do is include BSD licensed code in a proprietary project and not release the source code. You still have to include the original license somewhere though.

>you cant keep the changes you make to the code to yourself or make it proprietary like you can do with bsd code. that is a restrictions
In other words, the restriction is "don't restrict".

KEK LICENSE

This concludes our public service announcement.

>we hate code restrictions so fuck GPL when it says you must give sources
>shipping binaries under proprietary licenses is fine tho

BSD, more like BDSM

You can relicense a BSD project to anything you want.

No you cannot because you're not the copyright holder, that's literally copyright infringement. You can include BSD code in any larger project with any license even proprietary but you still have to show that the BSD code has been properly licensed for that use from the copyright holder because you did not write the code.

>The license used for BSD until 1999 had a special problem: the “obnoxious BSD advertising clause”. It said that every advertisement mentioning the software must include a particular sentence:

>3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement:
>This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors.

>Initially the obnoxious BSD advertising clause was used only in the Berkeley Software Distribution. That did not cause any particular problem, because including one sentence in an ad is not a great practical difficulty.

>If other developers who used BSD-like licenses had copied the BSD advertising clause verbatim—including the sentence that refers to the University of California—then they would not have made the problem any bigger.

>But, as you might expect, other developers did not copy the clause verbatim. They changed it, replacing “University of California” with their own institution or their own names. The result is a plethora of licenses, requiring a plethora of different sentences.

>When people put many such programs together in an operating system, the result is a serious problem. Imagine if a software system required 75 different sentences, each one naming a different author or group of authors. To advertise that, you would need a full-page ad.

>This might seem like extrapolation ad absurdum, but it is actual fact. In a 1997 version of NetBSD, I counted 75 of these sentences. (Fortunately NetBSD has decided to stop adding them, and to remove those it could.)

That's wrong, user. You can relicense it to anything. Do you think all the companies who make BSD projects proprietary are pirates?

What they do is include the code in their project but they also include the license. BSD projects do not tend to care about enforcement anyway but the license could be a problem if they have a specific exception for commercial usage.

This is totally false, but you don't have to read from my.
Read it from Theo's own words when he blast RMS ass:
marc.info/?t=119730647100001&r=26&w=2
Is a huge thread, so just seek for Theo and Richard responses.

Attached: 1560268019911.png (500x522, 133K)

Why do we infight so much? GPL and BSD-type licenses are good for the end-user, regardless of what you think about corporations.

Uhm, where did he actually "blast his ass"?

THE ONLY TRUE LICENSE IS THE I DON'T GIVE A FUCK LICENSE

I've read it before and that thread is a complete joke. RMS is a trolling cunt who baits hard and can't clearly state his point. Theo is a raging autist who fell for the troll and can't do anything besides throw childish insults around. All the OpenBSD devs are pathetic bootlickers and shills. Basically everyone on that mailing list should torch their hard drives and never touch a computer ever again.

You sound like this is the only mailing list thread you ever read.
ALL FOSS mailing list are full of this shit, full of autistic shills.
Retarded flamewars about software freedom and licences isn't something that Jow Forums invented.
Grow up boy.

>You sound like this is the only mailing list thread you ever read.
How did you come to this conclusion?

No they aren't, stop reading shit written by Stallman, Linus and Theo and there is a lot more civility. You just gravitate towards the autistic cunts and think everyone is like you when that isn't the case.
>Grow up boy.
Ironic

RMS is the most civil poster ever. The thread linked by this guy is a good example.

>Theo de Raadt: [....arguments...] Richard, you are too stupid to go and learn FACTS before you open your big fat lying mouth.

>Richard Stallman: [...arguments...] As regards the size of my mouth, I got a testimonial from a dentist that it is rather small. If you won't take my word for it, I will ask my mother to send me a copy.

Attached: 1482201509502.gif (250x250, 993K)

I've pointed to retarded flamewars, not productive discussions regarding topics that matter, with I read more often and find very helpful, like any critical thinking human being.
If you are easily triggered by cunts (hence you're butthurted by this) and want to do something for the good of sane discussions, just stop there.

They are useful idiots.
They make high quality software and
-ask nothing in return
-refuse a lot of thing in return
-get fucking nothing in return lmfao (openssh.com "OpenSSH is incorporated into many commercial products, but very few of those companies assist OpenSSH with funding.")

Jow Forums janitors get paid more than the average openbsd cuck, but they are fine with that for some reason.

He is right and you are wrong.
Gpl is copyleft.
Bsd is not copyleft.
Copyleft means whether you retain or not your copyrights on the code.
Now, guess what bsd is.

Attached: 1510704223254.png (495x561, 245K)

gpl enforcement is stupid eben moglen said this and he wrote it

Nobody enforces gpl.
Gpl is used when you want your copyrights to your code and want anyone who makes changes to contribute back to the community
It's that simple

Attached: jewish_media_degen_fem_cheat_cucks_white_family_genocide_1557540134220.jpg (803x803, 91K)

retard

Here's a crazy idea: they do not give a flying fuck about imposing restrictions they view as unreasonable.

But he's not right. You can go into the credits on the PS3 and see a bunch of shit about the BSD licensed software, because it's still BSD licensed.

mpv had to ask every contributors for their explicit permission when they tried to relicense to LGPL, guess why they had to

GPL's restriction is literally "no restrictions“. Only braindeads and mislead fills would describe the GPLl as restrictive.

>"No restrictions"
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL#Terms
>GPL
>gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt
I think you had the wrong idea while whiteknighting the GPL.

I think you're unable to read while activating your gray matter.

find me the part where the gpl imposes any restrictions that aren't preprenting restrictions

>provide the best development platform
Do they realize people are not stuck in early 70's? Nobody is going to give a shit about OpenBSD if they don't come out of retro text based "IDE" phase. Give me an extensible and feature rich IDE with an actual user interface then I might consider.
Fuck off.

Theo de FAG ladies and gentoomen

>waaah stop presenting evidence that contradicts me
Better luck next time.

Attached: (you)tried.png (233x270, 7K)

I don't know what "preprenting" is - neither does my search engine.

WTFPL is a meme license, you don't use it for real things. It's also a risky license since it doesn't protect you from literally anything trolls in law may impose on you. If you seek for "i don't give a flying fuck", better waive your copyright and use public domain like CC0.

Since your reply is regarding GPL restrictions: the GPL restricts you to not restrict others. This eventually generates more freedom than a "permissive" license, which may generate proprietary software.

what you have posted was evidence that you are wrong
i did not deny your evidence, i called you out for being unable to run the logic program on the information you collected

>Here is one, the code isn't bloated and doesn't mostly suck. I find it unethical to recommend a steaming pile of crap to someone.
spoken like a true cat-v autist

I don't give a flying fuck about what GPL is supposed to do. People can grab the source code, make superficial changes in their fork, and then distribute binary-only and no one will be the wiser. The BSD licenses are permissive and have different aims than GPL. There's no "war" between licenses. The licenses can't make you do anything. That takes people to enforce them. The GPL is as good as wiping paper if nobody gives two shits to get up and smack people's hands for misusing publicly available source code.

I don't care about reading the GPLv3 in all honesty. It looks like a wall of text with a bunch of do's and do-nots written by a simian-looking man.

>look at all the evidence i didn't read!

MINIX was supposed to be a cute thingy that should help students understand operating systems. For decades nobody cared about MINIX, it was just a toy. Not even when it was BSD licensed, anything officially happened. Then, all out of nowhere, MINIX became the worlds most used operating system - because reverse engineers revealed that the universal CPU backdoor, the Intel Management Engine, runs on MINIX. Andrew, the developer of MINIX read it in the news. He was partly angry that Intel didn't bother telling him, partly happy that, thanks to BSD licensing, MINIX got that popular.

Don't be like Andrew.
Don't power the botnet.

>we deliberately want multi-billion corporations to take our code free of charge with no strings attached

Attached: 68a21a93c9e476a1025aae303b4bef9bc7009288dc334afcf6c5dab2d32bf158.webm (640x800, 1.39M)

What is "NDAs"?

Non disclousure agreement

Thanks

Imagine being this much of a corporate bootlicker. These faggots deserve to be shot in the head.

Holy kek, based hobo hacker.

Attached: 1345941117d0a3e9809d7db453826ee798b3729e7e848708a1b79e0809e68304.jpg (497x640, 110K)

They have to or else their corporate overlords are going to cut off their funding
openbsdfoundation.org/contributors.html

Why force companies to reinvent the wheel?

Right. Stallman should seriously condense all of that crap so I can prove you wrong easier.

The GPL does not force anyone to reinvent the wheel, all it does is protect the end users' freedom

Imagine being angry over a software license.

Attached: 1560486393525.png (720x1094, 178K)

> Imagine being angry over a software license.
user, licensing is like politics: you can ignore it, but it will cone back to you and rule your life.

Imagine thinking nihilism is still hip and cool.

Attached: 1512532256153.jpg (456x502, 159K)

What do you think Theo saw, Jow Forums?

Attached: 1537235841509.jpg (800x600, 177K)

Something Linux and FreeBSD cucks like to sign because they suck corporate cock.

Says the proponent of BSD license

*ISC

As in "I suck cocks"?

Not everyone has an autistic obsession that's as petty as software licenses, sweaty.
The Freedumb Fighters should be directing their energies towards proprietary software rather than small-time shit like BSD licenses. It's rather pathetic that the GPL-fags have more to say about how BSD is a cuck license rather than tangible issues.

RMS' journal entries.

The GPL has failed to stop the corporate takeover of Linux.

All current developments are initiated by the Platinum Level Linux Foundation members, Apple, Microsoft, Intel, Google, IBM, and Samsung.

It's over. GNU failed. At least we still have emacs for now. But that too shall pass.

Attached: 9front-hierarchy-of-values.png (800x599, 107K)

Linux is still free software, the GPL's purpose isn't to prevent "corporate takeover" or whatever meaningless FUD you can think of