What are Jow Forums's thoughts on gpl licensed code?

the only "freedom" it deprives you of is making proprietary software with it which is like taking away your "freedom" to keep slaves

GPL does not force you to give your changes back. Closed source code is against freedom no matter how you look at it.

> Closed source code is against freedom
Developer wants the freedom to keep the code to himself.
> ITS NOT MUH FREEDOM

License your code under the AGPLv3 and sell a commercial license to companies to rake in the money.

GPL allows you to keep the code to yourself. You aren't required to publish GPLed code anywhere.
What GPL does say is that if you give someone else a binary, you also need to give them the source for a reasonable price if they ask, because it's not fair for you to withhold that and leads to an abusive power dynamic.

yeah it is not just code that you have to supply.
Lets say you have this very in-depth Jenkins pipeline that you use to build your code and you select stable artifacts from it as your releases. That's pretty much the only way to build the code. You also have to give that away or spend stupid amounts of manpower to make it buildable the standard automake way.
I suggest reading lwn.net/Articles/598371/ on what all GPL enforces.

I have read that. In that context a simple dump of your jenkins database would probably suffice. It's not fair for you to give a tarball to your customers and then say "lol you want to actually compile the code? too bad figure it out yourself". Even if you used MIT license people would still complain if you did that, although it wouldn't be against the license.

But also I should remind you that a build system that only exists in CI is incredibly poor engineering.

>a simple dump of your jenkins database would probably suffice
That is an InfoSec nightmare

No it isn't.

what freedom to make slaves?
proprietary software does not make slaves.
it does not force people to work for me.
gpl does. it force us to give your chages to the code back in gpl. forcing us to work for free if we want to use gpl code.
we either give code back for free, or dont use the code at all.
Just so you guys know, i am not actualy againt gpl. just against it claiming to give freedom and its clearly limitating and just another kind of proprietary. but instead of charging money to use the code, it charges the code you change on it from the developers. actual no cost for end users.
i am not against it because you are not forced to use gpl code. you can just write it yourself.
you have to agree to its terms.
anything that the person agree with is no business of anyone else.
it does, have you never read the gpl?
it says you need to publish and derivative work under gpl. that is giving you changes back as there is no cost for someone to just copy paste your code
>it does allow you to keep the code but it does >forces you to give away the code
ok
how is not fair i keep my work to myself.
abuse of power is having to give my code for free.
keep it closed source does not prevent you from making you own code. so there is no abuse of power. you still can do what your own code. you just wont force other to give away my code

It literally does not say you need to publish anything. Derivative works need to licensed under GPL. But they don't have to be published. You don't have to give your code to anyone and you can keep it to yourself. The situation in which you do have to share your code is when you give someone else a binary. Just because everyone else posts all their shit up on github for free does not mean you have to.

watch the TEDx with Stallman, the point is that the computer is a universal machine and the code running on it restricting you from using your computer in certain ways (like DRM) is an injustice and fosters dependence

youtube.com/watch?v=Ag1AKIl_2GM

>have to share your code is when you give someone else a binary
again you say you are not forced just to them contradict yourself and say it is forced
this is straight up wrong. the code does not restrict it allows.
if it restricted all you had to do is remove all the code then you would be able to do what you want code is in no way like drm. unless you make drm with it.
it is the oposite its an enabler. it allows you to do things you would not normaly be able to.
by making code i am not preventing you from doing things. i am enabling you to. and if you want to force me to enable you to do something. now that is slave work

holy shit you are retarded
I'll reply in place of too:
you can KEEP THE CODE FOR YOURSELF ON YOUR OWN COMPUTER get it tard??? you ONLY HAVE TO GIVE THE SOURCE IF YOU DISTRIBUTE YOUR SOFTWARE, IF YOU NEVER SHARE THE SOFTWARE THEN YOU DON'T HAVE TO GIVE ANYONE THE CODE ON DEMAND

also
>if it restricted all you had to do is remove all the code then you would be able to do what you want code is in no way like drm
absolute state of Jow Forums
that's the whole fucking point of FLOSS and you can't do that with closed source proprietary software both because the binary is unintelligible and the license disallows it in 99% of cases
jesus fucking christ this must be bait

> Cool program NOW GIMME THE SOURCE! ITS MY RIGHT! TO KNOW HOW YOU DID IT SO I CAN RECOMPILE IT AND SELL IT AS MY OWN

calling retard yet you for the 3th time say you have to give away the source
>ONLY HAVE TO GIVE THE SOURCE IF YOU DISTRIBUTE YOUR SOFTWARE

also i forgot some comas that chang things
>if it restricted all you had to do is remove all the code then you would be able to do what you want code is in no way like drm

i meant o say
if it restricted, all you had to do is remove all the code, then you would be able to do what you want. code is in no way like drm

code is not drm unless you can edit videos after deleting you editing software.
the code enables you to do the things. it does not restrict.
if you cant do something is not because someone wrote it saying you cant do. its because someone did not write it saying you can do.
so its the oposite of drm. unless of course your write actual drm.
so by making proprietary i am not preventing you to do things as you still can write you own code. puting my software will in no way prevent you from writing you code and doing what you want. i just wont be forced to write you a code that will enable you to do something at no cost

>calling retard yet you for the 3th time say you have to give away the source
because you're constantly confusing the terms of the GPL - you only have to distribute the source code if you distribute the software itself, but if you're not distributing the software AT ALL no one can come up to you and say "hmmm are you working on a software? ok now give me all of it" because you're NOT DISTRIBUTING it

>if you cant do something is not because someone wrote it saying you cant do. its because someone did not write it saying you can do.
but that is exactly the point of DRM
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management
you are only licensing software and other things like games and media in most cases and software actively prevents you from treating them like an actual product and copying, modifying, or even just installing things multiple times, or demanding you to be online to even use the software just to ensure you actually bought it

being forced to give away code when distribuiting, news flash, is being forced to give away code

if drm is allowing people to do things then all software is drm
who said i would be forcing people to adhere to this. i just wont be giving away my code.
if they want to reverse ingenier it with a decompiler they can. what you saying makes not sense