What if we added "provided you are a male born with a Y chromosome" to GPL?
GPLv4
Easton King
Other urls found in this thread:
gnu.org
twitter.com
Oliver Barnes
i agree op, only men should be allowed, especially men with big throbbing juicy hot cocks like mine
Henry Williams
You can't change the GPL, only the FSF can.
I honestly think that anyone who reads the GPL will stop using it since it's a restrictive piece of shit.
Aaron Jones
>we
>having any power over anything
How many times has twitter won again?
Robert Reyes
Restrictions are good, unless you are a cuck who loves to have his code take the bbc. I only wish there was something more restrictive.
Nathan Scott
no one can change the licensing of existing codebases except the copyright holders of those codebases. anyone can modify the GPL license however they see fit and license their own work under that modification. the FSF doesn't get to have a say in any part of any of this.
Ryan Carter
What if we added "nobody cares about you shut up" to GPL?
Aiden Price
Yes, they do.
gnu.org
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
Literally top of the page.Even GPL compatibility is decided solely by them.
Proprietary is more restrictive, maybe you'd like it more.
Xavier Evans
What's even the point of it? Why not just call it "public domain" like based Terry did for TempleOS?
Aiden Brown
If I wanted a people to give my code a proprietary license I would license it under the MIT license.
Nicholas Watson
that sounds like a cuck licensee
Kayden Richardson
To stop spread of propreitary software
Ryan Fisher
How is it free software if you're restricting what people can do with it?
Christian Allen
I don't want my code to be used in harmful ways, sorry.
Dominic White
and a "No Americans allowed" clause
Ayden Gomez
write harmless code then
Luis Nguyen
Lots of good coders are female. Restrictions would be nothing but bad publicity and be boycotted to rubble.
>my code
Your code is worth nothing unless other people contribute. If you make a dogshit license, nobody will like your product or service.
Again, diplomacy is the only way out.
John Hill
>write harmless code
>lazy code monkey takes it and adds the proprietary botnet required by his boss
Charles Cook
>his boss
So what's the problem? Don't open source your shit. Plus, people can steal your gpl code and you'll never know or do aything about it.
Sebastian Gutierrez
>dogshit license, nobody will like your product or service.
gnu doesn't suffer with gplv3, linux doesn't suffer with gplv2 and etc
Lucas Richardson
>adds the proprietary botnet
so it's his code that's doing harm, not yours
Samuel Hill
>you'll never know or do aything about it.
Not true, people have been taken to court over GPL violations.
Noah Barnes
Giant high-profile corporations that used millions of lines of code via investigations by teams of professionals (and well-paid lawyers).
You are nothing and you can do nothing.
Those don't have anti-merocratic restrictions.
Elijah Martinez
The delay is worth it. I would rather not assist him.
Brandon Cooper
>you can do nothing
make it a gnu project and the FSF can defend you
>don't have anti-merocratic restrictions
If the gplv2/3 don't have it what are you arguing against?
David Rogers
>can
I want contractual guarantees and regular consultations with lawyers, for free. Currently they do not provide such a service.
>against?
Against your shitty "gpl4" draft.
Jaxson Morris
>Currently they do not provide such a service.
well you don't really need those. Also, not OP.
Cameron Morgan
>don't
I do. I don't live by empty claims. Copyright law is serious.
Chase Lopez
Copyright law favors the one with the deepest pockets and if you require free consultation then it is pretty much hopeless.
Joseph Turner
Right. So the FSF is not a de-facto protector of my rights.
Jason Gutierrez
They have pretty deep pockets.
Eli Collins
They seemingly don't care about me one bit so no who cares about childish games like licensing your open source code. If you want to make a statement to the community, public domain it.
Austin Campbell
>They seemingly don't care about me one bit
Transfer ownership and they will care about their product.
>public domain
No, again I care about the code being used for good.
Parker Harris
>transfer ownership
I don't support such extorsions.
>for good
What are you robin hood? You're nobody. What have you made?
Carter Carter
>I don't support such extorsions.
Then you clearly don't want protection.
>What are you robin hood?
I don't steal taxes and give them to the poor. I try to do good because the lord demands it.
>What have you made?
not doxxing myself
Lincoln Adams
>clearly don't want
Typical extortionist speak.
>demands it.
You can do good by writing exemplary code and putting it in public domain so you save people valuable time. You can't baselessly make assumptions that proprietary software is evil.
>not doxxing
Well if you can't man up to your ideas and support them overtly, you are not a leader.
Jeremiah Torres
How are you restricted?
>inb4 waaaa i can't take their code to produce botnet
Jackson Kelly
>Typical extortionist speak
Not my fault the legal system is built this way. No other options really.
>You can't baselessly make assumptions that proprietary software is evil.
Experience. Why make it proprietary unless you are hiding something? Sorry, but I do not want to save development time for evil.
>you are not a leader
never said I was
Logan Harris
>other options
Public domain.
>hiding something?
You are not entitled to other people's code.
>I was
Good. Stay humble and keep your head down.
Lucas Peterson
>Public domain.
Not an option, unless you're a cuck who wishes to harm others.
>You are not entitled to other people's code.
Likewise for them, I do not ask for any other compensation beside following the GPL. Don't like the terms? Then pay up bitch.
>keep your head down
nope