Everything I have, I am forced to share with other men

non-GPL includes licenses where nobody else is allowed to do anything with your code ever

Look
A
The
OP
To
Figure
Out
What
Is
Being
Discussed

>Does it get more cucked than GPL?
We could imagine a theoretical license that allows open, voluntary contributions with no compensation, but has a single owner retain control of all intellectual property and receive all monetary gains as a result of software developed and distributed under said license. Said Codepig License would basically be an elaborate way to financially enrich the license holder who would be some kind of camgirl or instathot. That seems more cucked than GPL if you ask me.

no idea what the fuck it means

Yes, I know.
That is why you better shut up, instead of talking about things you do not understand.

People are talking about code licenses, no idea what your autism is about

I've seen at least one project which actually got away with this.

You basically described game modding

It hasn't been properly codified yet though. The CPL is a fresh advancement in software licensing, fit for our modern age.

you can make all the changes you want to GPL code as long as you don't distribute it
you understand this very simple concept right? that the reason the GPL exists is to ensure you have access to the source for the binaries you are running?
but I guess its better to be a codecuck so Sony or some company can lift your code and turn it into a
multibillion dollar product and maybe they will throw 10 or 20k your way so your project doesn't starve on the streets and you can keep implementing useful features for them.

>forced
have you tried not using it?

Copyright laws should be removed so that everything published is automatically public domain.

That would be a cool idea for a video game. Your players can use the source to mod it but your competitors can't use it for their product. I think I should make that license to use for my video games.

why bother with licensing at all? Nobody is stopping you from ripping-off any code you want and using it in your projects. If you ever face litigation on copyright/licensing grounds, just recompile the code in a different language and claim you wrote it all from scratch.

You don't need to make your entire project GPL-licensed just because you copied some shit from stackoverflow. If you do, you're a cuck.

>Microsoft
>bill
I see what you did there

>recompile the code in a different language and claim you wrote it all from scratch.
>tfw when you've done this and nobody will ever know

He can still fork your shitty code and sell it for profit even if you GPL'd it, plus there is no obligation for them to go back and integrate their improvements into any repositories under your control.

Provided you even want it. It's funny as fuck when freetards constantly deride proprietary software as inherently low quality based on the license yet when there's a remote chance their code may be "improved" in a proprietary manner they instantly start throwing a tantrum at the prospect of not seeing any of it put back into their project.

Yes we can imagine that. But the fact that you just did means it's now going to happen at some point in the future, because we live in a cruel universe that plays on our worst fears. Good job.

imagine being afraid of a software license

I used to love Linux but then I tried BSD. It's so stable and fast. I personally love it. You can use any driver for it available for Linux. Steam works fine. Seriously why do people hold onto Linux so hard for?

This. Where and by whom are you forced to use software with a GPL license?
On the other hand, you're pretty much forced to buy Microsoft's licenses and software if you own a business.

Linux, it's like BSD except less good in every way.

What's it like using an inferior os?

>cartoon explains that linfags have Stockholm syndrome because of their communist license
>"it's bullshit because the communist license is actually good!"

Fuck. This board has gone downhill. You know Gentoo / GNU was a meme right? No one actually used it. We all ran BSD.

Attached: 1563767317371.jpg (1150x2048, 402K)

>But the fact that you just did means it's now going to happen at some point in the future
I like to be at the forefront of innovations in existential human suffering. Only way out is through etc etc.

macOS is BSD, just saying

If they build improvements to GPL code that code is under the GPL too, retard. Even if they don't integrate it you can access and integrate it yourself.

first thing i do when checking out a library is check the license. if it's GPL into the trash it goes.

also a lot of GPL licensed libs are available for commercial licensing without the GPL cancer. it shows GPL is pseudo FOSS.

Attached: 9c2c0103c84b39f175873aa9ad5080328c60e426400117d72cec2e73d49b5076.png (720x897, 472K)

Hahahahaha THIS

Yeah, but will you? Probably not, especially if it's combined with a bunch of extra bullshit and spaghetti you have to sift through to pick out the good parts.

You faggots just pull retarded scenarios like these out of your ass as an attempt to validate your hipster licensing cult.

BSD is a cuck license. People take YOUR code, use it, and never give it back....wait that is worse than being cucked, you've just been stolen from.

GPL doesn't restrict that, morons.
it's limitation is to provide sources to binaries you distribute.

>what is SaaS?
the whole SaaS of doing everything on remote machine is highly encouraged by GPL software, since it means you don't distribute it thus don't have to open source.
congratz now you have to send all your data to 3rd party servers.

Attached: gsqw5ib2xib11.jpg (512x419, 17K)

No they don't because i don't submit code to the bsd kernel. When i do it's to fix a bug that i happen across. I'm not some control freak that makes Christians look sane.

The code i do is closed source. Try again sometime. Thanks for replying.

That's a lot of money. You do know Microsoft controls Linux now. Just let that sink in.

that's the whole point of FOSS, solving a problem once and sharing the solution instead of everyone having to re-solve it.

if you dont like open source then dont share your code, and dont pretend you're doing FOSS, faggot.

also it shows you never contibuted to open source. no one wants to maintain their own fork, so they contibute back changes instead of having to merge upstream all the time.

Attached: 3ABgwNC.jpg (720x720, 381K)

This is why there's so few bsd distributions. The gpl has forced a fragmented mess. Why would i use a license from a guy who eats his own feet scabs in public? The dude is mental.

Imagine you have this idea abouta lugnut but instead of being allowed to share it, you're forced into reinventing the entire car. This is the state of Linux.

Try like $300m

Seriously hp just donated like close to 750m

I see you are having basic syntactical issues. I was using the word 'you' to describe an ambiguous other, not 'you' personally. I am sorry that your job is pointless, maybe someone will reverse engineer the code in the future.

Nice double standards, you don't complain about it while pirating

You misunderstood what I was saying, that is fine, but try to understand that I am only trying to keep up with the status quo of trolling while simultaneously giving a reply that is partially reflective of my personal position on the topic.

>it's limitation is to provide sources to binaries you distribute.
Exactly, so you can get (or pull yourself) improvements from it back into your code. On the other hand, corporations love getting free MIT/BSD licensed code that they can fork and sell as closed-source without ever giving anything back.
I wish my job didn't involve doing the latter.

you are retarded

Excuse me?

yeah, the donations were so large that they aren't even listed on the FreeBSD partner or donation lists for 2019
or 2018
or 2017
>they haven't even received 600k this year
ohnononono

Attached: implying_750m_donations.png (501x832, 37K)

>needs linux programs
ok son

google SaaS

was meant for

>im poor and useless
>i want everybody else to be too

Only a problem for a small part of all FOSS software. There's a lot that gets bundled into non-free binaries or hardware.
If your FOSS project is one that is likely to be used as SaaS, you still have the option of going AGPL anyway.

>you still have the option of going turbo cancer
no ty
just dont pretend you're doing FOSS, i rather buy a license that doesn'trrestrict me than use GPL.

It doesn't really restrict you as a user, which is the point of FOSS. AGPL's extra restriction is on developers that modify it when using it.

and your point is?

By choosing a good license, you prevent people like me from taking your code, changing it to suit my needs, selling it as non-free software and never contributing anything whatsoever back to upstream, even if it wouldn't harm my sales at all to do so.

>everything I have, I am forced to share with other men
What does this statement have to do with GPL?

1. GPL isnt a good license
2. GPL doesnt prevent any of that
i can take your GPL code and sell it to other people and never contribute anything.

GPL's only achievement is to hurt developers and the open source ecosystem.

real FOSS projects stay away from GPL like from a plague. in fact everyone stays away from it except GNU/fags and SaaS.

Attached: image5.jpg (828x874, 428K)

>i can take your GPL code and sell it to other people and never contribute anything.
You don't have to submit patches yourself. As long as the upstream gets the source, they can pull them in themselves if they want to.

die weeb
this is fine because she's a freetard and I wanna fuck her

I use AGPL3 for troll value when I release shit on github. But I favor BSD/MIT for nontroll usage. Freedom is better than communism. Fuck Stallman the pedophile child fucking commie faggot

Attached: 911.png (405x529, 178K)

What manga is this

>what is SaaS?
that's the funny thing about GPL. all the faggot webdevs on hackernews scream about how great opensource is and YOU BETTER RELEASE YOUR CODE UNDER GPL ... but they themselves write shitty web startup services and never opensource it.
that's why you use Affero GPL because if someone uses your AGPL code in some shitty web service they must opensource their shitty webservice. this makes the valley startup coder rage and beg for """"DUAL LICENSING"""""

Attached: stop_posting.jpg (751x558, 300K)

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

>GPL's only achievement is to hurt developers and the open source ecosystem.

what are gnu coreutils?
what is the linux kernel?

There is so much retardation in your post

You're not, stupid retard.
Have you even read GPL?

You just can't distribute binaries without source code.
That's it.

Microsoft HATES GPL, ballmer himself was very critical of it becuase Microsoft can't steal your shit then, and they are mad about it.
Microsoft stole a lot from BSD projects, and never gave back anything at all.

>pic
I guess he's never installed Ubuntu before.

>paid Microsoft trolls trying to misinform their targets about what GPL is
Why haven't we banned the entire Microsoft-owned IP range yet?
Also Google and Apple.

>can I borrow it to him

Learn English, please.

Attached: url.jpg (600x400, 251K)

i can just not write anything and re-sell as is

they're the memers who started this shitshow. anecdotal.
go on github and compare how popular are GPL libs vs permissive license libs.

i use it daily at work

Yes, and? Selling it for money is not the problem. Also, why would anyone buy a paid unchanged copy of a FOSS code from someone who had nothing to do with its development?
Making non-free code based on FOSS is. That way, what they sell is actually a different program that isn't trivially replaced by the FOSS original.

>argumentum ad populum
You don't even know what you're advocating. You just built a convenient strawman and started lashing on it in order to compensate for your small penis.

if it's not the problem why you're so butthurt about someone else using your code?

The amount of repos does not show anything about how popular the contents of the repos are.

the only thing i lashed on is ur mom

They're free to use it as much as they want, as long as they don't fork it into non-free software. If they release their modified source, I can pull changes back into upstream. If they sell unchanged copies, then it doesn't have anything improved over upstream and is irrelevant. However, if it's forked and modified into non-free software, it's a potentially improved version that upstream doesn't benefit from, resulting in a completely new application that overshadows the FOSS original with its proprietary stuff.

People complaining about the GPL on Jow Forums are probably underage and do not remember when Microsoft was the only thing you could really use.
FOSS software is not monopolized, which is good for the consumer. Only zoomers or corporate shills are against the GPL.

>IBM modifies and uses GPL software >IBM give changes back
>Sony uses FreeBSD for the playstation >gives nothing back
>Jow Forums shills for proprietary software or BSD/MIIT license
really makes me think

Attached: debianstablejustwerks.jpg (849x565, 490K)

i think ive found the solution to the free software dilemma.
there should be a license where people who want to look at the code have to scan their passport, identity, address and sign an agreement and a program with telemetry in their computer to ensure that the source code stays in their computer and if they violate the license someone can sue their ass.
this is the only way for profit open source can work.

Considering Red Hat before purchase had a billion dollar revenue each year I highly doubt that.
It makes more sense for companies using software to spend the money on paying developers to develop the FOSS software than buy a license.

Not him, but he isn't "butthurt" about others using his code per se.
The problem is taking it and using it to produce a proprietary program, whose existence will inevitably harm user freedom, contrary to the intention of the original author of the code that was used.
The GPL exists exactly to legally prevent this from happening. You know this too, yet you pretend to not understand.
I said it once, and I will say it again: the only people who are against copyleft licenses either do so out of sheer ignorance about what they actually mean (and are swayed by the dishonest name "permissive" licenses from the other side) or because they are actively trying to undermine it, as their existence is hurting them.
Botnet, unethical corporations promote "permissive" licenses because they can benefit from them without having to give up on their oppression on freedom, unlike copyleft licenses.
However, in layman's terms, you *can* still benefit from others' GPL'd code: you just have to, say, not be a dick about it.
That's why dishonest arguments from people such as Theo de Raadt about "not wanting companies to reinvent the wheel" are pathetic and wrong.
The people who are actually hurt by copyleft *deserve* to be hurt by copyleft, so there is nothing to argue if you're a little entitled bitch. It means the GPL is doing its job.
I know inane replies will follow, still playing dumb and acting retarded. Nobody gives a shit about your immaturity, and trying to save someone who doesn't want to be saved is pointless anyway.

Attached: rinthighs_1.png (391x226, 62K)

strawman argument, GPL isnt limited only to modifications, it forces to open source everything it touches.

if you want to enforce contributions use MPL.

>this level of mental gymnastics
how many times you asked for the source code of a program you use?
> "not wanting companies to reinvent the wheel"
GPL is literally useless because that's what developers do - write their own code/truly free alternatives (I had to myself).

and lets face the elephant in the room - GPL is about double faced greediness, your bullshit "user freedom to source code" which nobody gives a fuck about goes out the window once corporations pay you money to stop play pretending and license it to them under commercial license.

Attached: 1564984077798.jpg (560x572, 56K)

Are you saying that corporations that make billions of gullible people should be able to use your hard-worked for software free of charge and never contribute back?

FIFY

Attached: 1564209910453.jpg (836x854, 190K)

>let others take it without giving anything back

it works for the amish

i dont care who uses my FOSS, you stupid commie.

>smart enough to figure out how walled gardens fuck things up
>dumb enough this is enabled by people giving them the code for free

>it forces to open source everything it touches
Use LGPL if you want to enable companies to integrate your software inside their non-free programs.

inb4
>baww no static linking
A feature of LGPL is to be able to modify how your LGPL part of the code, even if the program using it is closed-source. The point of all GPL is to *preserve* free software and ensure that its user still has the four rights, including to modify it.

You make Stallman look sane.

hey
hey buddy

you want to write GPL code?
go ahead, and pat yourself on the back, because no one else will. because no one else will use that code.

Attached: image0-5.jpg (750x661, 89K)