/liberty/ - Liberty

>Is the GPL communist?

Do you even know what communism really is? It is a practice of using force on others where the communist will violate your NAP for not doing their biding. GPL is merely a license for developers so that they can impose rules to whoever uses the software. So there are still sense of ownership there regardless what are the rules really are. Follow the rules if you want to use the software, or else will get in trouble.

>Is the GPL communist?

No, definitely NOT. GPL is a contract or a rule you need to obey when you choice to use the code. It does not "impose" you. RMS think with GPL programmer could better to protect their codes to be avoid closed by some "big companies"

>>75796

The Free software foundation defined all of them (GPL, BSD, MIT) as "free software license". There's no commie here.

>>75799

your argument is invalid.

>>75798

The ideological base is communist.

>software licences

lol

>>75803

nice meme

>>75817

>feeding your kids soy until they are old enough to either buy or grow their own source of vegetable-protein and xenoestrogens is communism

kys kike

>>75820

Oh, forgot to mention that Ayn Rand is a jew so you might want to reconsider your ideology to some other type of idpol.

>>75826

>Ayn Rand a kike

kys shill, go worship your kike (((Marx))) over at >>>/leftypol/

Requiring access to the source code contradicts freedoms 0 and 1. This is why positive rights don't actually exist; they always either contradict themselves or pre-existing negative rights.

I am not familiar with this stuff but if a programmer signs a licence that makes their programs and software open to modification, use, and distribution it is not necessarily "less" libertarian. You might as well ask which brand of soda is more libertarian, it doesn't make sense. Libertarianism is merely putting the individual and all that they can transform through the labor of their body as supreme and to not be molested, this includes the right to gain an economic profit from their work or to give it away freely as a gift or because of some higher metaphysical or ideological virtue.

The only exception would be if a license claimed sovereignty to all future efforts of a person's labor not related to the original software the license was used for and if the license could not be revoked (perhaps after a definite period of time).

>>75845

>libertarian

>socialism

pick one

>>75796

Wtf I love communism now!

She wasn't a jew. She wasn't brought upp religiously and was an atheist in high school.

>>75872

She was still ethnically jewish.

>>75872

Nice double standards. Marx is also a atheist.

>>75873

Doesn't matter., and the "muh jews" meme is beyond retarded.

>>75876

How stupid are you, exactly?

>>75878

As stupid as you lol

>>75880

>As stupid as you lol

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

What's the penalty for violating these license agreements?

>>75907

Assuming the programmer found the evidence that you violated the license agreement. You will get sued.

tell them that licenses are a spook.

It's called the fucking Public Domain (or CC0 for corporate hellholes).

Is there a way to report an entire thread?

>>75770

They're both shit and the Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License is the only truly free license.

The GPL does not allow you to oppress others, while the BSD does. So yes, BSD is a cuck license and therefore more libertarian.

>>76135

GPL developers are cucks for not selling their software under a proprietary license

>>76036

Yea no need for open source proprietary or not is a spook right

>>75803

>le proprietary is capitalist argument again

Just stop breathing air right now.

>>76357

It's true tho

>>76669

>le communism means sharing everything meme

Proprietary software exists is communism all the same

>>75770

The most libertarian software is that software that is created, bought, sold, and distributed without coercion.

Ergo, if a developer VOLUNTEERS his time to a GPL, BSD, or other licensed project its a-ok to a libertarian because it was a voluntary interaction.

The problem with these licenses is that its the best that we can do in a non-libertarian world. A more libertarian world might have little to no intellectual property laws (patents, copyrights, etc.). So the minute you make a program's source code available you've essentially given away your software for free. The only limit may be plagiarism, i.e. you can't copy someone's github project and claim it as your original work.

With this in mind, I think the most libertarian license is one that allows someone complete ownership over the software after purchasing it. That includes the source code. For open source situations, the most libertarian thing to do would be to allow someone to use it for any purpose as long as they give you credit for the work.

Microsoft Windows might still exist in a more libertarian society. The thing is that they wouldn't be able to sue someone for reverse engineering their software. Once someone buys a copy of Windows that means they own that copy. They can't outright go to M$ HQ and steal source code but they can reverse engineer the binaries that they already have. They also can't sue someone for sharing copies of Windows.

You might see Windows becoming more of a cloud-based platform in these cases.

>>76780

>Microsoft Windows still exists in libertarian utopia

wtf I'm a Stalinist now.

>>76782

You're a fool. Why couldn't Windows still exist? It could very easily become a cloud service like Azure and Skype online already are.

As I said earlier, a libertarian society wouldn't have much in the way of intellectual property. Once an idea is out there its up for grabs. Once you purchase something you own it. So copies of Windows would inevitably be hacked and torrented. Ergo Windows services in the cloud. Software-as-a-service would be the most viable way to make money off of software.

>>76782

>>76783

I would like to add that Google Docs is already a real world example of this system. It's a text editor that you interact with via your browser and it stores your files on a cloud.

>>76780

>The only limit may be plagiarism, i.e. you can't copy someone's github project and claim it as your original work.

Even then, it's still not theft, and prohibiting plagiarism doesn't need to come from an intellectual property standpoint. It seems to me like it's more of a fraud kind of thing, or maybe even libel, since taking the credit for creating something carries the implication that the actual creator did not create it.

>>76855

>rohibiting plagiarism doesn't need to come from an intellectual property standpoint.

I agree DRM / only serverside code is the libertarian solution

>>77312

Or just accepting the fact that information is not scarce, and attempts to make it act like it's scarce are pretty much guaranteed to be as ineffective as they are heavy-handed.

>>77312

Red Hat, Inc publishes unobfuscated source code for all of their software and contributes to other projects for free and still brought in $3 billion last year. When will this "we need DRM or we can't make any money" meme end?

>>77398

The meme is not "we need DRM or we can't make any money" but "we need DRM or we can't as much money as possible". Libertarianism is all about greed.

>>77401

>>77398

>still brought in $3 billion last year. When

and DESPITE THAT they made money! They are an amazing company I agree. They are still making most of their money off of other people endless free labor though. I assume thats where the difference came in.

>Libertarianism is all about greed.

well memed by property

>>77401

>Libertarianism is all about greed.

It's not any more materialistic than most other contemporary ideologies. In fact, it's less materialistic in that it protects the property rights of everyone unconditionally, so as to put a check on the greed of those who demand what is not theirs. Hence why surprisingly few businessmen are libertarians: We'd put a check on their greed. No more subsidies, no more cronyism, no regulatory capture. They'd have to earn money by delivering a service.

What is the epitome of greed, on the other hand, is socialism. Now, fascism and national socialism tend to be a bit more spiritual, albeit in an extremely deranged fashion, but so-called scientific socialism is pure materialism, psychologically even more than ideologically. These socialists don't just want better conditions for themselves, they also want it at the costs of others. They're more than greedy, they're envious. Millions died under Stalin because he wanted to rapidly industrialize his country, and sold grain in the middle of a famine to buy capital. Millions died under Mao because he wanted to improve the steel industry at any and all costs. What is that, if not greed?

>>75771

>GPL is merely a license for developers so that they can impose rules to whoever uses the software.

And licenses are not contractual agreements, they are universal, it is forced unto you whether or not you sign an agreement. In this way, the GPL is authoritarian, using the coercive power of the state to prevent proprietization.

>>77421

>off of other people endless free labor

No-one is forcing people to make those contributions. They do it because they enjoy it, or because they like a particular piece of software and want to make it better, or because they just want to get some projects in their portfolio so they can get hired somewhere. For the sake of argument, though, how would you fix this state of affairs? Are you going to fix free software by making it closed source?

>>77603

>Are you going to fix free software by making it closed source?

Yes

>>77424

There is no state mandate that guarantees upon the GPL software. The only violation of GPL is when you turn it into close source proprietary software. The fact you didn't write that source code, how is that making GPL software into close source proprietary be any right to your ownership of the software? The GPL software is designed to make the source code available for future used so that users can protect themselves from malicious source codes. Having close source in form of binary codes doesn't help users at all. How should the users know the software is well coded and cleaned of spyware without having the source code available to the users?

>>77713

>be any right to your ownership of the software

So called "intellectual property" is information not property. If I take a picture of your car I did not steal anything.

>>77726

A picture is not an executable program, You only stealing a picture of my car. My argument only applied to an executable close source and non close source software.

>>77762

Its all information. Its all free to copy. I don't owe you any information just because you ask for it. You can have the executable and fuck off. DRM > intellectual property laws

austrian economics debunked (redpill overdose)

TRIGGER WARNING: FACTS AHEAD!!

tl;dr

>gold standard is unstable and not a viable currency, susceptible to fraud and dependent upon mining

>they are openly anti-scientific, rely on "praxeology", they are philosopher at best

>dumb ideology funded by koch brothers think tanks (CATO) to convince ignorant armchair economists

>every prediction they had is proven wrong

>they business cycle theory is wrong

>they don't use scientific method, no maths, no statistics, nothing, just speculation

>only used as political rhetoric by ron paul to rile up his gadsen-flag hillbilly voterbase

>all of peter schiff's predictions are wrong, he has been preaching doomsday for decades

>mainstream economics agrees with less than half of their policy

>literally no respects austrian economists today, abandoned as early as 1950's

>only good thing to come out of it was Hayek, who wasn't even Austrian since he rejects praxeology. He contributed to price theory, and added to the socialist calculation problem. Also his philosophy is superior and way more nuanced compared to mises/rothbard.

top global econ journals, ZERO positive austrian results, all negative! outdated! wrong! pseudoscience!

https://academic.oup.com/qje/search-results?page=1&q=austrian&fl_SiteID=5504&allJournals=1&SearchSourceType=1

https://academic.oup.com/restud/search-results?page=1&q=austrian%20economics&fl_SiteID=5508&allJournals=1&SearchSourceType=1

https://www.aeaweb.org/journals/mac/search-results?within%5Btitle%5D=on&within%5Babstract%5D=on&within%5Bauthor%5D=on&within%5BjelCode%5D=0&journal=6&q=austrian+economics

https://www.aeaweb.org/journals/jep/search-results?within%5Btitle%5D=on&within%5Babstract%5D=on&within%5Bauthor%5D=on&journal=3&q=austrian+economics

http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream_economics

ihttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_neoclassical_synthesis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_consensus_of_economics

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00220480309595230

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.nl/2017/04/economics-is-inexact-science.html

https://thesis.eur.nl/pub/39717/Master-Thesis-Nicolas-Bernerman.pdf

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1530995

https://recoveringaustrians.wordpress.com/top-ten-austrian-economic-lies-and-mistakes/

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm

https://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/top-ten-lies-and-mistakes-of-austrian-economics/

https://hallingblog.com/2015/09/08/praxeology-an-intellectual-train-wreck/

https://www.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/search?q=austrian&restrict_sr=on

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2138469

http://www.econlib.org/library/Topics/College/marketfailures.html

https://www.colorado.edu/economics/morey/4545/introductory/marketfailures.pdf

https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1py0a8/eli5why_is_the_gold_standard_bad_feel_free_to/

https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-criticisms-of-the-Austrian-school-of-economic-thought

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/eej.2012.32

you are getting (((nosed))) lolberts

https://www.economist.com/news/business/21711504-his-theory-management-inspired-austrian-school-economic-thought-worked-wonders

want to learn REAL economics? no problem, open source PDF book

https://openstax.org/subjects/

Blogs (neurtal-center right)

http://marginalrevolution.com/

https://uneasymoney.com/

https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/wiki/blogs

http://econlog.econlib.org/

..

>>77806

when it's posted in every thread it's literally spam