AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Lawsuits, don't be retarded.

And to all of you faggots who are gonna say "lmao stop sperging autist, this won't happen you paranoid nigger":
You've said that the last 1000 times shortly before the SJWs did indeed take over and ruin everything.
This will be included in the GPLv4 now that RMS is gone, calling it right now.

Nice, already got although I'm not sure if he's referencing me or the Twitter fag in the screenshot.

That's legally not a license.

>84 likes
it's fucking nothing by a literal who

Judging by this thread, and the subsequent freaking out over a license that hasn't been utilized by anything yet, you're completely right the entire field is immature as shit. You included of course.

>international lawsuit over exotic software license
Nah.

This is not free software or open source software. They can't be any discrimination against fields of pursuit. L

I dont see what's wrong with this.

Couldn't you just fork it and change the license?

>and change the license
No, that's not how copyright works. Only the current copyright holder is allowed to legally change it.

Attached: SJW.png (584x264, 62K)

How would you enforce it all by yourself?

Wasn't that tried already?

>although I'm not sure if he's referencing me or the Twitter fag
I meant the Twitter fag, just read his comments:
>"Hey, you know this isn't open source and doesn't conform to essential open source values"
"I disagree wholeheartedly! Thanks"

I am willing to bet that this guy got beaten up at school, which drove him to his position. You can't read his conversation without getting angry.

This fucking nigger

Attached: Untitled.png (576x333, 37K)

Firstly, force is necessary for a functioning society, secondly it is conceptually retarded, thirdly it is incompatible with anything that can be called free software, fourthly the people who push deserved the beatings they got in school but just drew the wrong lessons from it.

I'll make my own license saying vegans can't use it. I'm sure they'll be pissed because they can't use my fart sound generator software!

Based, when will someone make a license that forbids tranny's from using or modifying the software?

No you brainlet, or else all licenses would be worthless.
The license isn't just some text file in a repository, it's what every single file in that repository has been released under.
All of the code you obtained by forking would still be owned by and under the license of the owner. The most you could do is add an additional license saying that all code you have added to your fork can be used for "violent" purposes, but none of the original code could.

On what ground?

But trannies make the best software.

Who would use this?

Breach of License Agreement

Most of your examples wate reactionary. If I made 3d printing software, and someone 3d prints a gun wouldn't this help keep me out of the courts? If I made a software that lets you keep track of family, and then someone uses to stalk instead, doesn't it help keep me out of court?

Whats with this guys passive aggressive writing style?

>I disagree wholeheartedly! Thanks
>Hey thanks for the feedback but I disagree with you and @OpenSourceOrg , why should "non-commercial use" be a valid restriction and "non-violence" not be? Why submit your authority and allow them to be the thought police?

No they make bloat. There isn’t one decent piece of trannyware excepting M.U.L.E.

We did try to warn you. But you said
>They will never come for me i follow all their rules
Enjoy every sped putting their own snowflake body problems in to FOSS. Don't call it a grave,it was the future you chose.

Attached: 1517685074807.jpg (474x473, 12K)

That's why they've been angling to replace the entire board of the FSF - to change the definition of it so that it doesn't include the first of four freedoms: unlimited use for any purpose.

They started pressuring the board to resign right after RMS did.

The question won't be "who would use this", it will become "what will they do to people who don't"

What are the actual rules on what you can put in licenses and enforce with copyright? Can you discriminate however you please, for example could someone say 'this software cannot be used by black people' in a license and actually sue them if they use it? I remember one time as a joke some website put in their terms of service that they own your soul if you sign up. Obviously a lot of this stuff would not hold up in court but where is the actual line? Can you actually say stuff like 'armed forces can't use this'? What if I make a non-copyleft weak license that allows companies to use the code but I just put 'Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook and Amazon can't use this' or 'companies over X size can't use this', what are the rules anyway?

Something like this has been overdue. The exclusion of law enforcement seems concerning, though.
I'll keep using GPLv3 for now.

Jow Forumspl - shareable but software must be used to harm others

Absolutely everything.
What makes you think you should be allowed to just shove your own opinions down everybody's throats?
"Hate speech" just means "Opinions that I personally do not like". It's an extremely manipulative buzzword.
I'm all for being nice to each other and all that, but the way SJWs try to go about it is absolutely not the right way.
They just end up censoring everything that they personally do not approve of. It's not about making the world a better place (honestly I don't think it ever was).
Right now it might be about race, religion, etc. (at least that's what they publicly pretend it to be about), in 2 years it will be about "Hey, you play that one video game that I do not like. Fuck off, you're getting banned and deplatformed".
They will try and find every possible thing just to shit on you if there's something about you that they don't like. If for example you make a movie, and it "only" has 49% women and 51% men in it, they will try their very best to ruin your life with their stupid "misogyny" argument.
Censorship is an extremely slippery slope as SJWs prove it to be again and again.

It's not free if you're taking away other people's freedom, and violence is taking away other people's freedom.

Which leads to test of the license itself, which fails on grounds of unresolved subjectivity

And?
This is irrelevant and will get no adoption, as no company whose lawyers have double digit IQ or more will touch this with a ten foot pole.

Attached: 6fe0ffe84679292b6957b8d1e7977b85c2a84da76463f8dc852d3f9a53b84b45.png (360x594, 249K)

>a whole long anti SJW post that doesn't answer the question

kek

In that case, I guess no license would be enforceable. Man, FUCK free software! Just take and use what you want!

T-this is pasta, r-right? Surely you didn't take the time to write this much text without realizing it is completely off target?

>FREE SOFTWARE IS FUCKED
No, it isn't.
The moment you put vague, subjective shit like this in your license is the moment your software stops being free software and becomes "open sores" non-free garbage.

It's just a Jow Forumstard.

This is not FOSS fucktarded animeposter.

They would not use it anyway because the methane from cow farts is polluting the planet or something.

Absolutely based.

GPL and Apache licence have no such problem

>weaponized free software
I'm ok with this

Well it will be soon. Enjoy having to worship trannys to boot up your OS. Because it will happen.

I'm not sure it would apply to this license, but stuff like "do no evil" is perfect example of clause that is too vague and most likely unenforceable. Some lawyers were still fussy about adopting (I think it was?) SQLite without getting an exception though. "non violent" is a bit less vague though and would probably scare most lawyers to a point where your software will have no adoption.

Can you not read?
>Censorship is an extremely slippery slope as SJWs prove it to be again and again.
Therefore, this should not be allowed.
These dumb fucking SJWs will often use their generic arguments such as "misogyny", etc. and take things out of context if there's something ELSE they don't like about a particular person.
It's exactly what happened with the whole RMS Epstein thing.
They took his statements out of context, told the media about it, and now RMS had to resign from the FSF and MIT due to the sheer size of the shitstorm.
They probably disliked his opinions about pedophilia and bestiality, and now they had a chance to fuck him over, by taking his Epstein comments out of context, as they do a lot when they're busy SJWing.

How is this off-target? They will use licenses such as this one to enforce their censorship agendas.
It's the next part of their plan.

Ive never heard of this dude
What softwares has he written that he will apply this license to
I have a usb foam missile launcher

>more boutique licenses written by literally who's that are also nonfree

Wow, this is shocking news.

I always found it ironic how much leftists hate cops. They want to have a million laws dictating every little mundane detail of your life, and they genuinely believe people are just gonna play nice and obey them all without a threat of violence. So what happens if I violate your shitty license? You're gonna send a bunch of men with guns to abduct me

>We
Cringe. I can smell your neckbeard through the screen.

Dilate

>thanks I disagree
holy shit I want to punch him

Ok, I lost, how are you make me comply without violence?

This kind of thing has been done and sperged out about before, i.e gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#JSON

People of all backgrounds are just giant bigots. It's best to just ignore extremism from libraries on Twitter than to read anything useful from it.

>not wanting your software to be used for law or military applications, or unlawful harassment and hacking is censorship
Your whole argument is knee jerk reaction to recent RMS events.

Cops aren't bad. Unless they kill black people. Then they're bad.

What the fuck is this. If the FOSS wasn't already done with PC bullshit.

Attached: Screenshot_2019-09-21 Various Licenses and Comments about Them - GNU Project - Free Software Foundat (1980x227, 40K)

Have sex

I don't care whether it's censorship or not. What I care about is that it scares lawyers and thus has no chance of getting of the ground.

This.
You know they like to feel like they're fighting against hate and bigotry right, that's their whole point. To get people enraged, and they feel fulfilled for "fighting for a cause" and for saving the world. Just ignore those posts and repos from GitHub. I'm sure it won't do shit except for extreme leftie neckbeards who whine at everything.

It is, by definition, censorship.
You as a software developer should not (be allowed to) impose any restrictions regarding what purpose the software is being used for, just like every popular FOSS license to date (GPL, MIT, BSD, ...).

>I don't care about censorship
>literally two long posts about it
BEGONE TROLL

>This software may not be used by people who I don't like.

Good luck getting courts to recognize this one.
Remember when that bakery refused to make a gay wedding cake? Yeah, it's pretty much the same fucking thing. This won't have any legal ground.

Clinical autism.

Not a single "free" software license has been enforced. Ever.

>I'll keep using GPLv3 for now.
>Not using AGPLv3
Thin clients are the inevitable future we don't want. The AGPLv3 is the only solution.

I'm not him, baka.

Attached: d3ccc10dca1feec73a4fbba7aa07406e-imagepng.png (654x702, 414K)

It's not like GPL2 is going anywhere.

This is some faggotry posturing anyways.

(cont)
Also see It is not up to you to decide what's "good" or "evil" usage, because good and evil are extremely tangible things and are not set in stone.
The only sane and reasonable thing to do, is to stay neutral on such things, and therefore allow any kind of usage, even if it means your software is used for things you deem "evil", even if there other people that agree with your definition of "evil".

Based schizo poster

Does this means chinks get to use it even though they're brainwashing people?

You should be freaking out.
See

I want Jow Forums schizos to leave

Someone has to file a suite though.
And who?
Not these leftist goons.

What according to them is good and bad? Who defines them? Is it subject to change? Should a software developer be responsible to what his/her code is used for?
If I'm working for a company and they ask me to work on a project that goes against my "ethics" and ideologies, should I quit or work on it since it's my duty?

>everyone I dont like is schizophrenic!
I never thought bullshit popsci from the 70s would come back around.

Well "ARMED" is kinda vague.
What if you employ armed services or security.

GPL has been extensively enforced, inbred.

yes yes keep denying that this won't happen very fucking soon
keep living in your dream world where SJWs don't exist and totally aren't out there trying to ruin absolutely everything on this goddamn planet
i mean it's not like SJW crap such as this happened 50 million times before. oh wait, oops, it has. damn
you're the reality-denying schizos here.

It's all a PR shtick from IBM/RH and it will be them who writes GPLv4. They may like virtue signalling, there is no way that bullshit like this will get past their lawyers.

No.
Its one of our master plan to make non white cis-men as uncomfortable as possible.
MwuHAHAHAHAAA

Attached: 1552135368866.jpg (1280x720, 135K)

Well the current goodthink is that as long as it harms straight white males it is all good. But remember code woke or else.

this thread seems to be full of sum glow in the dark seethe
unironically based and a great license

Attached: 13EFC21D78D1096A.jpg (1200x1093, 199K)

Again, this would have to go through IBM/RH's legal. There is no way in hell they'll adopt a license which will scare all their sane customers away.