/tech/ - Technology★

>In contrast to the GPL, which is designed to prevent the proprietary commercialization of Open Source code, the BSD license places minimal restrictions on future behavior. This allows BSD code to remain Open Source or become integrated into commercial solutions, as a project's or company's needs change.

In other words, the BSD license is the license of choice for cuckolds.

>In addition, since the BSD license does not come with the legal complexity of the GPL or LGPL licenses, it allows developers and companies to spend their time creating and promoting good code rather than worrying if that code violates licensing.

it allows developers and companies to spend their time making money off your hard work and violating user freedoms with your code.

fuck off bsd-cuck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>803955

Dubs of truth

>Companies interested in promoting an evolving standard, which can become the core of other companies' commercial products, should be wary of the GPL. Regardless of the license used, the resulting software will usually devolve to whoever actually makes the majority of the engineering changes and most understands the state of the system.

That sounds terrible. Why would anyone want a software to devolve into being maintained by the ones who understand it the best?

Reminder that GPL is freedom and other licenses are for cucks.

tbh tru freedom includes freedom to be cucked

>>803965

>tbh tru freedom includes freedom to be cucked

True.

That's why WTFPL exists.

>>803967

>WTFPL

Cancer.

>>803967

>WTFPL

why not public domain????????

>make license that discourages innovation

>all the software looks like it's from 30 years ago

lol

>>803969

Because they have to mask their cucked nature with edginess.

>Companies interested in promoting an evolving standard, which can become the core of other companies' commercial products, should be wary of the GPL. Regardless of the license used, the resulting software will usually devolve to whoever actually makes the majority of the engineering changes and most understands the state of the system.

That sounds terrible. Why would anyone want a software to devolve into being maintained by the ones who understand it the best?

>>803953 (OP)

So do Netflix and Hulu work on the BSDs yet?

>>803953 (OP)

>Reminder that the GPL is evil

Consider re-read it.

MIT License or LGPL at most.

>>803981

We took a wrong turn in software design years before that. The GUI was a mistake. Command line is more natural to normal human interaction methods.

>>803981

>muh looks

Can the other children in the class spot the faggot?

>>803955

>it allows developers and companies to spend their time making money off your hard work and violating user freedoms with your code.

This is exactly who the GPL benefits, with Android and other products based on your hard work. The GPL does not benefit the original developer unless they dual license.

The QPL is the anti-cuck free software license. Forkers have to distribute their modifications as patches, which gives the original developer more power. I don't like BSD either. If I wanted someone to make money from my software, it should be me, not Apple and Google.

>A less publicized and unintended use of the GPL is that it is very favorable to large companies that want to undercut software companies. In other words, the GPL is well suited for use as a marketing weapon, potentially reducing overall economic benefit and contributing to monopolistic behavior.

>The GPL can present a real problem for those wishing to commercialize and profit from software. For example, the GPL adds to the difficulty a graduate student will have in directly forming a company to commercialize his research results, or the difficulty a student will have in joining a company on the assumption that a promising research project will be commercialized.

>>804034

>This is exactly who the GPL benefits, with Android and other products based on your hard work. The GPL does not benefit the original developer unless they dual license.

Android suffers because it's GPL v2. GPL v3 fixes the tivoization issue, but Linux is hard to re-license. Probably impossible. As for getting "paid", we do get paid: in code.

QPL is not a free license.

>>803981

Well nothing good happened in the last 30 years anyway. And we know this because if it did then we'd have it for free.

That's the deal. Nobody is allowed to make money and in return we all get amazing futuristic software. Like Xorg and Emacs, woah it's like an OS inside my editor, and Vim, future tech modal editors.

Cause otherwise it'd be like we killed every part of the software industry that wasn't Microsoft for essentially nothing.

building your own walled garden with gpl,

now thats """open""" source

>>803981

Linux is the only good thing released under GPL. What's your point?

>freebsd.org

>cuck license

>>804041

Linus will never re-license it because he thinks that prevenring tivoization is retarded.

>>804050

>prevenring tivoization

What did he mean by this

use licensezero instead

>>804054

>npm install -g licensezero

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

gtfo

>companies refuse to use GPL code because it prevents you denying freedoms and ownership to your customers

>WAAAH WAHH THIS IS COMMUNIST TOTALITARIANISM IM BEING LOCKED OUT WAAAH

>>804064

>MS Excel

>BSD

nigger what

>>804064

tl;dr kys cuck license lover

>>804067

You can always dual license. BSD cucks sure love to lie to push their disgusting licensing habits. Also, I love how your number one priority is whoring yourself at the expense of any users or even your own vision of a project. Cuck license indeed.

BSD license basically says

A) I made this

B) When you make copies, include this list

C) Do whatever you want in the confines of (A) and (B)

Basically it's an executable business card, GNU/dumbshits.

>>804076

t. cuck

>>804076

>B) When you make copies, include this list

too restrictive. if you are going to be a cuck, at least release your shit into the public domain

>>804073

>le communist maymay

>le pepe

You're seriously retatded and don't understand free software.

>>804081

>hurr I have to make sheckels, goy

Gas yourself.

>>804068

lmao you can't dual license. holy shit does anyone even read these licenses before they sign over all their work to it.

>>804084

What is Qt?

>>804056

Translation:

>I am so basic that I literally cannot function without having everything spoonfed to me, thus I have debilitating bouts of autistic screeching when the prepackaged version of something is not written in my memelang-of-the-week

>>804097

>It’s not permitted to mix Qt commercial licenses with Qt LGPL licenses in one project.

so this is the power of dual license

>>804114

What's the point of even doing that? The commercial licence is for the whole Qt code base.

Would you be trying to make someone else's FOSS Qt application into a proprietary one?

>>804115

When I hear dual license. The first thing that springs to mind is totally separate and distinct licenses that can never touch each other.

>GPL

Commie bullshit.

>>804119

"Isn't it ironic that the proprietary software developers call us communists? We are the ones who have provided for a free market, where they allow only monopoly. … if the user chooses this proprietary software package, he then falls into this monopoly for support … the only way to escape from monopoly is to escape from proprietary software, and that is what the free software movement is all about. We want you to escape and our work is to help you escape. We hope you will escape to the free world."

Richard M. Stallman

>>803960

HAH! Isn't that one of the "Nazis, watch out!" commie poseurs?

>>804146

>Proprietary vs GPL false dichotomy

I'll take "What is OSS?" for $500, Alex.

>>804146

Aaaaand a response from the proprietary world:

"For independent software developers seeking a livelihood, what does the LINUX model of 'Open Source Software' offer? The answer is short and simple. Nothing. Aside from the fantasy business model of selling people something that is available for nothing, there exists no viable LINUX open-source business model. This is by design. The 'GNU General Public License' (GNU GPL) under which LINUX open-source software is distributed dictates a model of software development based entirely upon unpaid labor, collectivization of effort, forced confiscation of private property, prohibition of Free Enterprise as 'Evil', and demonization of 'Enemies' who do not use the GNU GPL. History has shown us this model before. This model is called Communism. The frequent and disengenuous use of the term 'Freedom' throughout the GNU GPL is deceptive. What 'freedom' do Free Open Source Software (FOSS) developers gain by licensing their source code under the GNU GPL? They gain the freedom to distribute their work for nothing. They gain the freedom to sue in a court of law, with the aim of seizing intellectual private property, anyone who uses their work in a product. They gain the freedom to be sued themselves if they use any GNU GPL licensed component in a product and do not freely distribute the source code for their entire work, so that anyone, anywhere, can field a clone of the product they labored to create. The authors of the GNU GPL defend this with the political manifesto that Free Enterprise in computer software is 'Evil'. So, how does the GNU GPL differ from Communism? It doesn't. The GNU GPL is a perfect realization of Communism. Marxist economic models have been tried before, and the verdict of history is grim. As a vector of Communism, the GNU GPL is profoundly dangerous since it is a 'viral' form of licensing. Under this cynical lawyer trick, any system contaminated by a GNU GPL component, no matter how insignificant relative to the whole, is from that point on legally hijacked. The copyright holder of the GNU GPL component can sue for release of all source code for the entire system. Anyone who uses any component of the compromised system will find themselves similarly entangled in liability. The mechanism of the GNU GPL is identical to a computer virus. The GNU GPL is viral malware that creates an endlessly self-propagating legal liability. Software source code distributed under terms that empower lawsuits demanding the intellectual private property of anyone foolish enough to use it, is not 'Free'. It is fraudulent to say that it is. The cost of GNU GPL source code is your explicit agreement to be enslaved by Communist doctrine, to enslave anyone who uses your source code to Communist doctrine, and to be sued in a court of law for any deviation from Communist doctrine. It is a deceitful absurdity for the 'Free Software Foundation (FSF) to claim that it is a 'charitable organization' that is 'Defending Freedom' by using lawyers and litigation to dictate Communism as the sole 'ethical' model for software development."

>>804146

>>804218

>>804146

Aaaaand a response from the proprietary world:

"For independent software developers seeking a livelihood, what does the LINUX model of 'Open Source Software' offer? The answer is short and simple. Nothing. Aside from the fantasy business model of selling people something that is available for nothing, there exists no viable LINUX open-source business model. This is by design. The 'GNU General Public License' (GNU GPL) under which LINUX open-source software is distributed dictates a model of software development based entirely upon unpaid labor, collectivization of effort, forced confiscation of private property, prohibition of Free Enterprise as 'Evil', and demonization of 'Enemies' who do not use the GNU GPL. History has shown us this model before. This model is called Communism. The frequent and disengenuous use of the term 'Freedom' throughout the GNU GPL is deceptive. What 'freedom' do Free Open Source Software (FOSS) developers gain by licensing their source code under the GNU GPL? They gain the freedom to distribute their work for nothing. They gain the freedom to sue in a court of law, with the aim of seizing intellectual private property, anyone who uses their work in a product. They gain the freedom to be sued themselves if they use any GNU GPL licensed component in a product and do not freely distribute the source code for their entire work, so that anyone, anywhere, can field a clone of the product they labored to create. The authors of the GNU GPL defend this with the political manifesto that Free Enterprise in computer software is 'Evil'. So, how does the GNU GPL differ from Communism? It doesn't. The GNU GPL is a perfect realization of Communism. Marxist economic models have been tried before, and the verdict of history is grim. As a vector of Communism, the GNU GPL is profoundly dangerous since it is a 'viral' form of licensing. Under this cynical lawyer trick, any system contaminated by a GNU GPL component, no matter how insignificant relative to the whole, is from that point on legally hijacked. The copyright holder of the GNU GPL component can sue for release of all source code for the entire system. Anyone who uses any component of the compromised system will find themselves similarly entangled in liability. The mechanism of the GNU GPL is identical to a computer virus. The GNU GPL is viral malware that creates an endlessly self-propagating legal liability. Software source code distributed under terms that empower lawsuits demanding the intellectual private property of anyone foolish enough to use it, is not 'Free'. It is fraudulent to say that it is. The cost of GNU GPL source code is your explicit agreement to be enslaved by Communist doctrine, to enslave anyone who uses your source code to Communist doctrine, and to be sued in a court of law for any deviation from Communist doctrine. It is a deceitful absurdity for the 'Free Software Foundation (FSF) to claim that it is a 'charitable organization' that is 'Defending Freedom' by using lawyers and litigation to dictate Communism as the sole 'ethical' model for software development."

>>804218

There's no false dichotomy. OSS (OSI definition) is still Free Software.

>>804244

Let me see if I can go through this point-by-point... Very annoying that this troglodyte writes Linux as LINUX. If anything, the desire for copyright law is more communist than anything the GPL could imply. (I'm an ancap, not some sort of commie, if that holds any relevance.)

>Aside from the fantasy business model of selling people something that is available for nothing, there exists no viable LINUX open-source business model.

What is Redhat, Cynus, GRsec, Mozilla, Canonical, ID (Doom, quake) etc

>The 'GNU General Public License' (GNU GPL) under which LINUX open-source software is distributed dictates a model of software development based entirely upon unpaid labor, collectivization of effort, forced confiscation of private property, prohibition of Free Enterprise as 'Evil', and demonization of 'Enemies' who do not use the GNU GPL.

This is untrue. The GPL does not say how your work should be done - all it states is a list of restrictions that one must follow to have a legitimate derived work that is not a license violation. The only license violations come from the use of proprietary software. You can break the rules, but you will face the consequences of copyright law, something the GPL was designed to abuse in the opposite way to regular copyright. In fact, without the GPL, you are much more restricted in what you can do - nothing. You can do nothing without the consent of the copyright holder, under their (usually) very strict rules and regulations, which is more communistic than the GPL could ever be.

>They gain the freedom to distribute their work for nothing. They gain the freedom to sue in a court of law, with the aim of seizing intellectual private property, anyone who uses their work in a product. They gain the freedom to be sued themselves if they use any GNU GPL licensed component in a product and do not freely distribute the source code for their entire work, so that anyone, anywhere, can field a clone of the product they labored to create.

They gain the four freedoms of software. They gain the right to enforce the license on their software, in the same sense a proprietary developer does if you use their code without following their rules. These are so far, non-arguments. Just the proprietary developer not understanding the double standards and hypocrisy he is engaging in. He only wants copyright law to be legitimate when the licensing suits his preferences.

>The authors of the GNU GPL defend this with the political manifesto that Free Enterprise in computer software is 'Evil'. So, how does the GNU GPL differ from Communism? It doesn't. The GNU GPL is a perfect realization of Communism. Marxist economic models have been tried before, and the verdict of history is grim. As a vector of Communism, the GNU GPL is profoundly dangerous since it is a 'viral' form of licensing. Under this cynical lawyer trick, any system contaminated by a GNU GPL component, no matter how insignificant relative to the whole, is from that point on legally hijacked. The copyright holder of the GNU GPL component can sue for release of all source code for the entire system. Anyone who uses any component of the compromised system will find themselves similarly entangled in liability. The mechanism of the GNU GPL is identical to a computer virus. The GNU GPL is viral malware that creates an endlessly self-propagating legal liability. Software source code distributed under terms that empower lawsuits demanding the intellectual private property of anyone foolish enough to use it, is not 'Free'. It is fraudulent to say that it is. The cost of GNU GPL source code is your explicit agreement to be enslaved by Communist doctrine, to enslave anyone who uses your source code to Communist doctrine, and to be sued in a court of law for any deviation from Communist doctrine. It is a deceitful absurdity for the 'Free Software Foundation (FSF) to claim that it is a 'charitable organization' that is 'Defending Freedom' by using lawyers and litigation to dictate Communism as the sole 'ethical' model for software development.

This is all just a lie, it's almost slander. Nothing about the GPL is communistic - it is turning copyright law on it's head, as it was designed to do. Copyright law is an insane violation of property rights. This is just autistic rambling from a statist cuck who's mad he can't tell other people what to do.

>>804251

I didn't say FOSS, I said OSS. There are many open source licensing models which are incompatible with GPL and FSF standards, and your god RMS denounces mere OSS as not free.

>>804267

>>804251

In other words, FOSS is a strict subset of OSS.

>>804064

> willing to payroll you

> implying they wouldn't payroll 20 pajeets instead

> implying they wouldn't payroll some other ass at your level and more money to fix poo-in-loo code just to pretend Chad in project management didn't waste 2 mill by outsourcing.

>>804257

>the desire for copyright law is more communist than anything the GPL could imply

Privatization of code is more communistic than forced sharing? And you're AnCap but hold this view? Stopped reading there, no confidence in the rest of your reply making ANY sense.

>>804293

>privatization of code

>private property

>code

>information, a series of bytes, infinitely reproduceable

>property

I wonder how the retard talking about selling proprietary extensions to your BSD code intends to protect his claim to own a certain pattern of 1's and 0's in ancapistan.

>copying a binary is a violation of the NAP

>Reverse engineering is literally theft of my belongings

>>804297

>source code = binary distributables

>it's just 0's and 1's

This is a discussion for programmers, normalfag.

>>804298

It very much is.

>muh ebul gommunist gpl prevents me from making money

unlike if you didnt share the source code, but everyone could copy the binary and share it because its just some information on your disk.

So I suppose you're in favor of either intellectual """""property"""""", or awful DRM.

>>804305

>everyone could copy the binary and share it because its just some information on your disk

What's that got to do with license propagation by source code inclusion?

Again, this is a discussion for programmers who are familiar with licensing.

>>804239

>The mechanism of the GNU GPL is identical to a computer virus.

Yeah, horrible to have software infected with freedom. This is all bullshit. If you want your software proprietary just copyright it. If you want to be microsoft, be microsoft. That's standard practice and no one is going to stop you. No need to go into any debate about licenses at all.

>freedom

Orwellian as fuck. FOSS licenses are far more restrictive than OSS licenses.

>>804329

>sucking corporate dick is better than Free Software

>>>/india/

>>804309

>You are free to roll your own cuckware, that Apple can rent backdoored to Fashionistas

Nice strawman.

>copyright

This belongs to the author inherently, before licensing is even considered, by virtue of him creating. Men typically don't create land,and codified land stewardship is therefore analogous to licensing, not copyright.

This board is full of fucking retards.

>>804331

I'm a white man who writes OSS under non-libre licensing, and my software propagates faster and wider than your GNUisance code.

>>804315

>if you don't use it, it won't infect you. Therefore it doesn't infect things when you do use them.

You should probably abstain from metaphors and abstract thinking in general.

>>804333

Just doing your part in ruining the world. Women in tech everywhere salute you for your contribution.

>>804335

>Just doing your part in ruining the world

Because my software is ACTUALLY free to use, and doesn't impose restrictions, I'm ruining the world? You're a menace to this board.

>>804334

Are you retarded? A virus dose not need to be manually put into people bodies to infect them.

>>804337

>dose (sic) not need to be manually put

This is a perfect demonstration of you not understanding how metaphors work. How embarrassing for you. No metaphor is perfect; you're not supposed to enumerate boundary conditions as proof that the metaphor is invalid. That's literally the opposite of how metaphors work.

>>804342

>loves communism

>hates feminism

At least develop a consistent worldview before spewing your ideas everywhere.

>>804343

>freedom is communism

>corporate monopolies+repressive state = freeeee

You're like those "war is peace" faggits in that dystopian britbong novel.

>>804346

And the fact that RMS takes 10 minutes to explain his very special definition of freedom, which only works when we're all under the same yoke, should be a big tip-off. His definition is indistinguishable from the version of "freedom" as practiced by communistic governments of the 20th century.

>>804348

If I'm a big bully and I go around smacking everyone around me and take their shit, is stopping me an act detrimental to freedom? Your argument is yes, because you repress the freedom of the bully. My argument is no, because the bully infringes on everyone elses freedom. Neither is technically wrong, but yours is stupid. (protip: we don't have a free market.)

>>804349

But the problem is, we already live in a totalitarian system. It's technically not communism, but for all intents and purposes it's indistinguishable on all important points. Might as well try to keep your handlers a little bit in line instead of just rolling over and let them rape you with a smile on your face.

>>804348

BSD would be "less restrictions" if we didnt live in a society where the government uses intellectual property.

Freedom to leverage the government to stomp on other peoples freedom is not 'freedom'.

The GPL imposes freedom upon what is by default authoritarian.

>>804352

>>804350

"Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my face begins."

>>804350

To your second point, I'm inclined to agree, though we live under a cascading set of jurisdictions under a republican form of government which has gone awry (presuming you mean the USA). I don't see how this relates to the discussion, however, because license adoption and software inclusion is voluntary, and the copyright holder chooses the license.

>>804354

>I don't see how this relates to the discussion, however, because license adoption and software inclusion is voluntary, and the copyright holder chooses the license.

Personally I don't care what you do with what you create. Giving it away is commendable in my view. I don't see the need for the BSD shit, that's just vanity. Make it public domain if you don't care.

But it's not about that, it's about some systemic generalized problems in our society, which is a totalitarian oligarchic weird blend of the worst aspects of corporate monopoly capitalism and socialist bureaucracy. Young men are compelled to create, they will create whether they are rewarded for it or not. A good system will reward that, so as to make this self-sustaining. A bad system will employ a slash and burn type mentality to it, where you squeeze the soil for all it's nutrients until it's barren. We have a bad system.

For all his flaws Stallman saw quite clearly where things were headed with this exploitative neo-vassalization of young men in tech. His shit doesn't fix the system one bit, but it throws some sand in their cogs at least, forcing them to give some morsels back for what they take. This drives the establishment insane because they feel you should work for them for free and go die in poverty like a good serf when you've expended your energy. Which is what the "open source" movement is about. Did you think intel-front monsters like Google pushes open source out of the goodness of their hearts?

>>804357

If we take it as a given that human beings can be trusted to act in there own best interest, not absolutely but to the extent that their visibility of consequences allows, it would seem that your concern is unfounded. A person with an IQ high enough to write software for a major corporation, should be well enough equipped to decide if taking a particular job is in his own self-interest.

You'll find the most "libre" licenses in software which changes the least, and that is adopted the least. And so that would be core utils, which is exactly what we see.. To take another step and say that ALL software should be yoked under restrictive licensing, or else you're not "free", is Orwellian doublespeak as the dictionary proves. Libre software is highly restrictive because that's the only way Stallman's software utopia can be realized. If using such licenses for ALL software were most beneficial for the author, we would see it adopted more frequently by software startups which have 1-3 employees. Software developers have more autonomy and control than any other builders I can think of throughout the course of humanity.

>>804361

>adopted

I meant to say, "included as a component to a larger piece of software".

>>804357

Furthermore, I don't think your descriptions of what a "good" system look like and what a "bad" system looks like can be taken for granted. If a creative person wants to work themselves to death on their masterpiece, he will. He will use himself up, voluntarily. Keep in mind that value is relative to individual desire, and speaking in harsh aggregates and idealism leads to central planning and oppression to attain those ideals.

>>804361

A persons IQ doesn't really apply. Everyone has to live within the confines of the society they are a part of. A high IQ slave works for his "own self-interest" in the sense that he has no other choice. It's not an optimal situation for him by any means.

As for your example about start-ups, licensing doesn't really come into play. They should just copyright their shit and be done with, no need to mess about. I'm not defending GPL as a proponent of "stallman's software utopia" which is a completely unrealistic idea. I'm defending it's use in direct conjunction with the "open source" phenomenon, which is in reality a free labour racket by the corporate monopolies. Basically the situation I'm talking about is the systemic phenomenon where young western men are displaced from the workforce and markets in general through social programs and indoctrination, while still maintaining it's technical base, only now in a rapidly increasing degree for free. It's a horrible deal and it won't last, that's the only positive to it.

Speaking of freedom at all in an unfree world is Orwellian doublespeak in a way either way you look at it. For me it's not really about freedom at all, which seems like a pipe-dream, but a pragmatic view of restraining your rulers as much as possible. Because as history has shown, they will take it all if you let them.

>>804364

Nah, I'm not a relativist. Obviously when I'm talking about good and bad that's my personal opinions, which shouldn't need to be stated. You might disagree, but that's you.

1/1

>>803953 (OP)

Ok lets compare:

GPLv3

Freedom 0:

>The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose

Freedom 1:

>The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

Freedom 2:

>The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).

Freedom 3:

>The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

BSD

Freedom 0:

This freedom can and can't exist at the same time since the license doesn't require the software to let people execute the software on other platforms or a modified version on the same platform if they want to.

Freedom 1:

This freedom can and can't exist at the same time since a company isn't required to share the source code when they distribute it, example with nintendo who doesn't share their modified version of the BSD kernel or the Intel management engine who uses minix.

Freedom 2:

This freedom can and can't exist at the same time since it depends on the company that did or didn't share their modifications of the distributed product they made.

Freedom 3:

This freedom can and can't exist at the same time since it depends on the companion that did or didn't share their modifications of the distributed product they made thus also ultimately affecting freedom 0.

This is why BSD is a cuck license it depends on the will of the company that uses it to share the modifications or even let a users make a modification on some thing that he normally ==OWNS==

People get cucked by using this license.

>>803955

>This allows BSD code to remain Open Source or become integrated into commercial solutions, as a project's or company's needs change.

Implying that the GPL can't be commercialized.

Just respect the license and it can always be commercialized.

>it allows developers and companies to spend their time creating and promoting good code rather than worrying if that code violates licensing.

Implying that a developer can't understand that he just has to share the source code when he gives a binary to someone.

Implying that companies doesn't have a juridical department or lawyers to check the licenses.

>>803960

>Nothing wrong with that.

>being a cuck is not wrong

ImProudToBeaCuck.jpg

>>804034

>The GPL does not benefit the original developer unless they dual license.

The GPL benefits anyone who uses it.

If a developer wants to make a financial benefit out of it he should begin to sell his services.

>The QPL is the anti-cuck free software license.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html

>This is a non-copyleft free software license which is incompatible with the GNU GPL. It also causes major practical inconvenience, because modified sources can only be distributed as patches.

>We recommend that you avoid using the QPL for anything that you write, and use QPL-covered software packages only when absolutely necessary. However, this avoidance no longer applies to Qt itself, since Qt is now also released under the GNU GPL.

The QPL is a poorly written license so poor that it isn't accepted by Debian and it's ok with the FSF guideline but not with the GPL.

This is one of the most confusing licenses that I have ever seen.

>>The GPL can present a real problem for those wishing to commercialize and profit from software. For example, the GPL adds to the difficulty a graduate student will have in directly forming a company to commercialize his research results

One of the point of the GPL is to have transparency about research if you bullshit people about research your work isn't going to last long.

> or the difficulty a student will have in joining a company on the assumption that a promising research project will be commercialized.

This is nonsense in a company there's 99% chance that in your contract it's stated you don't own the copyright of what you do.

>>804041

>ut Linux is hard to re-license

Actually most of the drivers are under the GPLv2+

The linux kernel could migrate to the GPLv3 license without that much effort.

>As for getting "paid", we do get paid: in code.

True but we can also live on the services that we offer to people or sell the software.

2/2

>>804367

>>804064

>So with GPL, you often get lots of shit-engineered software with little foresight into future modifications,

First proof.

Secondly, And ? part of the work is already done if a company or someone want to make modifications it's less work and they can make a benefit out of it or pay the developer of the project to make the said modifications.

>a quilted patchwork of bits written by hobbyists with a narrow view of what the overall architecture of the project should be.

>written by hobbyists

Implying not professional work

https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=137392506516022&w=2

>You get shitshows like LibreOffice Calc vs MS Excel, and anyone who's actually pushed both with lots of data know how quickly Calc falls apart.

LibreOffice is under the MPLv2 and you are complaining about JAVA developers.

>Proprietary could get all the security benefits of FOSS (bug checks, lots of eyes on code, etc) by opening their code to public view with a public repository, but still have an EULA which basically says "if we catch you using this for business/commercial/employment/consultative purposes without a license, we reserve the right to sue you for big big HUGE monies!"

You forgot the part where it says you can't modify the software/hardware.

And still not letting people own their hardware that they bought

>>804073

>What's cuck is you can't figure out how to parlay BSD code into a money stream so you get pissed and rush into the arms of Richard Stallman-Marx for safety from the mean bad entropic world.

The cuck part is that if a company use the BSD code into it's product like intel did with the ME and not allowing the users to have control of that then you are cucking the normally owners of the product.

If you want to make a living out of free software it's better on the long term to make maintenance contracts and you are paid monthly for your services for X companies.

That means that you gain money for the work that is asked do but also for the work that you don't do (depending on what you put in the contract).

For example you can guaranty that you each week you verify X or that you can correct X numbers of problems.

There's also the ticket system if you want.

A ticket cost X if a company wants more of your services but they don't know when they need them you can sell them batches of maintenance tickets (that has a of course expiring date) the probabilities of them using all the tickets before the expiration is low, meaning that you multiply your benefice and even more if the problem they ask you to fix doesn't require lots of time.

The whole point of the actual money system is to multiple the initial costs/benefits and there's loads of way without removing the users freedoms.

>>804076

>C) Do whatever you want in the confines of (A) and (B)

Ok so with this BSD license I added a contract that you need to respect

>you don't own the software/computer

>you can't modify/configure the software

>you can't share the software

>you can't put it on another computer

>you grant to us a nonexclusive, transferable, royalty-free, sublicensable, and worldwide license to use Your Data

Thank you for your forced cooperation

Another one

>you don't own the software/computer

>you can't modify/configure the software

>a condition to do so is to give us $$$ and you have to share use the modifications you did

>you can't share the software

>a condition to do so is to give us $$$ and multiply it by the numbers of people you share it to.

>you can't put it on another computer

>a condition to do so is to give us $$$ and multiply it by the numbers of computer you install it on.

>you grant to us a nonexclusive, transferable, royalty-free, sublicensable, and worldwide license to use Your Data

>This condition also works on any shared version or installed of the software.

Thank you for your forced cooperation

>>804288

>So you can charge someone $6,000,000.00 to download the GNU Bash binaries but you can't charge them more than $6,000,000.00 to download the corresponding source. What a fucking commie license!

And ? why would you make them pay for something they already paid for ?

It also guaranties freedom 1,2 and 3 to be possible.

If you want to sell your source code at higher price just change the price of the binary.

You are bickering for nothing.

>>804367

>>Nothing wrong with that.

>>being a cuck is not wrong

>ImProudToBeaCuck.jpg

Calm you autism, Stallman. I was obviously being sarcastic.

>>804371

It was meant as an example of how the GPL is not a business unfirendly license; the $6,000,000,00 was just an example, it could have been anything else.

>>804332

=BSDcuck detected!=

Enjoy doing it for free for Apple and Jewgle, retard.

>>804471

>BSD

Never stroked a single key on a BSD system.

>for free

Six figure salary.

>>804367

>Actually most of the drivers are under the GPLv2+

Yeah, but because the Linux kernel isn't like GNU software, and is actually a collection of individual contributions licensed under GPL v2, you'd have to track down every single one of the original authors in order to re-license, which is next to impossible, and some authors care more about their software getting used by companies like google on Android, than users being free to really use the code on the machines they own.

I don't get it. Does, say, BSD forbid forking something that a corp decides to lock sources of? Isn't that what happened with OpenSolaris?

>>804548

No, it's simply that you do not get the benefit of the work that company did and then locked away, while they get the benefit of the work you did. It's simple, if someone is going to fuck your wife, it better be because you're swingers (GPL), and not because you're so "free" that you invite strange men into your bedroom while they tell you to get the fuck out.

>>804551

No, I get butthurt over corps profiteering from someone else's labour, even if I don't share it. I don't get why BSDfags need to go to flamewars with GNUfags and vice versa. The former got their own thing that they can share at a loss with corps with potential benefit of getting a dole, the latter can be NEETs hoping they wrecked their eyesight and spine for some greater good. As long as both forms of autism are possible to pursue I don't see a problem.