/tech/ - Technology★

>>825934 (OP)

You don't seem to understand what the permissive licenses you're referring to allow you to do.

>>825937

They allow you to relicense.

>>825939

No, they do not.

>>825946

Yes they do you fucking idiot.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_BSD_operating_systems#General_information

Most of these BSDs have licenses that are fully GPLv3 compatible. In fact, some of them have even been released with a GPL license at some point.

>>825946

For the BSD license, section 7 of the GPL says that those additional terms are allowed to be added. Keep in mind that you can not remove the BSD license text from the file though.

The GPL license isn't compatible with the old BSD license btw

So you made your fork, then what happens?

>developers use permissively licensed libraries and tools because of the license, they will never ever touch your fork and risk the viral GPL pozz loads no matter its merits

>end users don't care about licenses of their programs but you still have to develop a superior fork, and it's highly unlikely that you will be able to surpass the momentum of the original project, especially if license autism was your sole reason to fork

Basically, there's a > 99% chance you are ignored completely, and a < 1% chance that you were a potentially good contributor and are now considered a social pariah for causing pointless drama.

>BSD is a cuck license

Communists go oink oink in >>>/leftypol/

>>825964

No, they don't, you fucking idiot. Look at the FreeBSD license.

https://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license.html

It gives you permission to redistribute, use, and modify the software, subject to the given restrictions. That's it. Do you see relicense in there, you cumsucking ape?

Now, if you add to a BSD-licensed piece of software, you can license your own contribution to it however you want. For example, if I take a piece of BSD-licensed software, and I add a command line option "-op" which prints "is a nullo with a gaped asshole", and I license that snippet of code under the GPL, then the codebase is now BSD+GPL. But the original code is not relicensed.

Go ahead: take a piece of BSD-licensed code, make absolutely no changes to it, "relicense" it under the GPL, and try to take someone to court for using it only under the terms of the BSD license. You'll fail.

>>825974

lmao you fucking retard. I never said shit about relicensing existing BSD code and then IMMEDIATELY suing anyone using it.

From the OP >>825934 (OP) (OP)

>They could hijack the codebase and slowly start building new features that the cuck licensed originals wouldn't be able to take back.

Fucking kill yourself.

>>825973

>>developers use permissively licensed libraries and tools because of the license,

>>end users don't care about licenses of their programs but you still have to develop a superior fork,

Who the hell is the end user of a BSD? DEVELOPERS, by and large. Both of your statements are false on their own, and also artificially separate. Many developers AND end users prefer GPL because it protects them from corporations and increases freedom. As well, developers and end users use BSD because it is different and superior in some ways to Linux. Many people would like to have a BSD that is GPL licensed. Look at how the lack of GPL is putting the BSD devs into contortions, creating Linux compatibility layers to bring in AMDGPU code. There's a use-case right there.

>>825973

Basically this. The OP implies that people who use GPL3 are allergic to lesser free licenses when that's simply not true. A free license is a free license, and there are plenty of use cases for simpler licenses than the GPL3 even among people who tote the GPL3, like with libraries and config files. In the same way that you don't use a software license for, say, artwork, you don't use a certain license if it's malapropos--whether that's GPL or MIT or whatever is conditional.

Plus, it's not pragmatic. Why would you needlessly alienate yourself and antagonize the authors of a piece of free software just because your agenda is slightly different? It's so petty.

>>825985

Not all software needs the GPL to be protected from being stolen from public domain. In some cases, it's more cumbersome to use the GPL than to just use a more simple one. Frankly, the issue is more of a practical one than ethical. The ethical part is taken care of since, firstly, some of the protections of the GPL are redundant in SOME use cases, and, secondly, it's all free software. Even the FSF doesn't believe in GPL exclusivity. Take a look: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html

This anti-permissive license mindset is why other people in the free world outside of the GPL camp hate us. It's not only harmful to ourselves on a technical scale, because we can't collaborate with them, it hurts our reputation tremendously by perpetuating this "GPL zealot" stereotype.

>>825989

>Not all software needs the GPL to be protected from being stolen from public domain.

However, this thing objectively does happen to BSDs. Permissive licenses like LGPL do have a place for things that make sense, like libraries. However, BSD is an OS.

>Even the FSF doesn't believe in GPL exclusivity. Take a look: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html

>This anti-permissive license mindset is why other people in the free world outside of the GPL camp hate us.

I've read Stallman's book, I know what the FSF stances are. However, Stallman and the FSF are essentially opportunist in many respects. The reason Stallman doesn't call for 100% copyleft or even more extreme licenses is simply that he knows they wouldn't get popular and wouldn't be "pragmatic." However, the GPL is still a great start, and it would be a positive thing to piss off the permissive license zealots, because it would force people to debate the issue and really consider how free their code is. You don't get anywhere by avoiding hurting people's feelings.

>>825985

>lmao you fucking retard. I never said shit about relicensing existing BSD code

Holy shit, you're stupid. You said:

>Why isn't there a group of people who take lots of permissive-licensed projects (such as BSDs, browsers, and other stuff like that) and relicense them as GPLv3 or AGPL?

The answer is because you cannot relicense them, you fucking retard.

It doesn't matter whether you try to relicense them

>IMMEDIATELY

or wait 10 years.

You can license your own additions to a BSD-licensed program however you want.

You cannot relicense BSD code unless you are the copyright holder.

Learn to read, you insufferable cunt.

>>825992

>You cannot relicense BSD code unless you are the copyright holder.

When you change it, you can slap a GPL on top. Anyone who wants the original code without GPL can still go to the BSD-licensed repo, obviously. But you straight-up are able to put the GPL onto BSD-licensed code as long as you abide by the BSD license. Not my fault you're autistically focusing on the wording when the meaning of what I said is clear.

>>825992

Well, not to stick my head in between what seems to be a pretty heated flame war, but technically you can relicense BSD software if we're talking about two-clause or three-clause. Part of the obnoxious thing about the umbrella "BSD" license is that its variants are much more different from eachother in their implications than even GPL2 and GPL3. Combined with the fact that there are more variations is bound to lead to some mix-ups. The scuffle with OpenBSD and Linux developers relicensing to GPL3 was that the code they were appropriating was clause-4 and thus not GPL-compatible. With that in mind, while it is technically possible to relicense two-clause and three-clause, that in itself isn't really enforceable since anyone who took your code could just relicense it under BSD. Obviously, if you were to make GPL additions to the codebase, that's a whole different ballpark, but not a very wise decision. Why? Because it's basically up to you to maintain and contribute to that codebase, now. Not to mention, your fork would be very controversial in its formative stages. That's kind of what happened with Mplayer2, which was, to be fair, quite shitty. But from the ashes of Mplayer2 came Mpv. So, yeah. I guess that answers the OP, doesn't it? In that people have forked BSD code and made a piece of GPL software out of it. Quite rude, in my opinion, and kind of pointless, though, in most cases.

>>825991

You know, the more I read your posts, the more I understand why everyone keeps calling us "GPL zealots". For the record, I understand what you mean. I bet it's an awful feeling to wake up one day and see that your code has been stolen from you by some corporate hawk or whatever, and I assure you that I'm not one of those people that thinks free software can coexist with proprietary--that would be absolutely stupid; but my point is that using a more copycenter (although there's no such thing as true copycenter, in my opinion) license doesn't necessarily make you vulnerable to copyrights and patents. Not all software is created equal. It's not that using a more permissive license is the kind of convenience you would take that would put you at risk, and I get why you would rather not bask in the altruism of looming corporate entities, but the fact is that using a permissive license for certain kind of things doesn't actually put you at any risk.

>>825996

>the fact is that using a permissive license for certain kind of things doesn't actually put you at any risk.

I know that.

>>825973

>everyone's fucked over because MINIX is BSD-licensed and Intel uses it in the ME to collect data because they're a cutthroat self-interested megacorporation trying to (at the behest of their shareholders, ready to reinvest at a moment's notice if their company doesn't do as expected) squeeze every last buck that they can out of you, the user, at the cost of your freedom

<The real problem is the SJW commie* cucks and their (((overlords))). #MAGA guys! If everyone in power had white ancestors going back to [insert arbitrary year], everything would be great!

Life's tough for retards like you, isn't it?

* never mind that /leftypol/ says in its FAQ that they're the place on the internet for class-based, anti-SJW leftists, not that I'm from that board

>>825934 (OP)

The only common stipulation of all BSD licenses is that the source code licensed under it remain under BSD license, no matter what. I'm not a legal expert. I just read the Wikipedia article on the BSD licenses.

>>825998

I should point out that IME has only been officially MINIX based since very recently. Obviously I know we all like to shit on Tanenbaum for being the smug BSD cuck that he is, but the fact that MINIX lent itself to that kind of use means practically nothing. Ultimately, Intel is the perpetrator in this issue, and they would have and DID create IME regardless of whether MINIX factored in or not. And as for your point about BSD, that's not true. The different BSD licenses actually vary quite greatly as to whether they can be relicensed or not.

>>825998

>The only common stipulation of all BSD licenses is that the source code licensed under it remain under BSD license, no matter what

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesCompatMean

>What does it mean to say a license is “compatible with the GPL?” (#WhatDoesCompatMean)

>It means that the other license and the GNU GPL are compatible; you can combine code released under the other license with code released under the GNU GPL in one larger program.

FSF says BSD is legally GPL compatible, which is good enough for me.

>>825934 (OP)

Because Linux kernel is the only thing licensed under GPL that sane people are willing to use, and even then it's under v2. Good luck finding a single standardized piece of software licensed under General Communis License.

The whole concept of software freedom is for cuckolds. Only a cuck would want to make it possible for other people to take their code and use it however they want. Chads do proprietary software.

>>826002

>majority of developers are developing proprietary commercial software, where a single line of GPL code in the wrong place could destroy an entire business.

So? That's their job. Does your boss own you? Does he dictate your own preferences?

Also, the GPL license has ironically contributed GREATLY to the success of Linux and other GPL projects with corporations. Private businesses understand that if they are forced to work on and use open source projects, that copyleft prevents competitors from taking their own expensive contributions and refusing to collaborate back. Linux is everywhere because of the GPL.

>>826003

weak troll

>>826001

Compatibility is not relicensing. The BSD-licensed code in a BSD+GPL mixed-license project remains under the BSD license.

>>826010

>The BSD-licensed code in a BSD+GPL mixed-license project remains under the BSD license.

Yes, but the combination is GPL.

>>826002

>hurr intel would have compromised their backdoor instead of using another permissively-licensed OS or creating their own from scratch/going "bare metal xd" if MINIX didn't exist

I don't deny that. It certainly wasn't what Tanenbaum intended for MINIX, though. As it happens to be, BSD licenses and other permissives allow for freely-developed software to be used to subjugate the user by inserting malicious functionality. That is sickening.

OP's solution is dumb, however. He should read the documentation on the license and look for alternative solutions. Clear now?

<If I change the topic and post a webm of a tranny giving a blowjob, I win!

Not how this works.

>you're not fooling anybody

About what? You know, not everyone who disagrees with "gas the kikes! lynch the blacks! race war now!" is a communist, right?

Evil (((/leftypol/))) shills aren't hiding around every corner, lusting to corrupt your pure Aryan soul in return for Sorosbucks. You think Google wants people calling for the immediate destruction of the state, private property, and money to become popular? No, revolutions are bad for business.

Calm down, get a hold of yourself, and consider all the alternative explanations which you can for whatever you see. Do you have all the information? Are your sources biased? Is there a simpler and more consistent explanation? Can you disprove one by testing? etc.

>>826013

Yes, but if you receive the code for the combination, then delete the GPLed parts of the code, what's left is BSD licensed.

Isn't LGPL the same in terms of freedoms as MIT or BSD only better written (because it's written by actual lawyers)? If so, can you use it for software or is it for libraries only?

>>826019

No, LGPL is just permissive about what you can link to it. LGPL code modifications still must be redistributed.

>>826015

>It certainly wasn't what Tanenbaum intended for MINIX, though

Actually, Tanenbaum sent Intel a letter thanking them.

http://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/intel/

>Dear Mr. Krzanich,

>Thanks for putting a version of MINIX inside the ME-11 management engine chip used on almost all recent desktop and laptop computers in the world. I guess that makes MINIX the most widely used computer operating system in the world, even more than Windows, Linux, or MacOS. And I didn't even know until I read a press report about it. Also here and here and here and here and here (in Dutch), and a bunch of other places.

>>826016

>if you receive the code for the combination, then delete the GPLed parts of the code, what's left is BSD licensed.

which would be swiss cheese by then.

>>826021

I already saw that article. Here's another quote from it:

> Many people (including me) don't like the idea of an all-powerful management engine in there at all (since it is a possible security hole and a dangerous idea in the first place), but that is Intel's business decision and a separate issue from the code it runs.

You shouldn't be be disingenuous just because he's a Jew. Moreover, if you are going to be disingenuous about this, don't post the article and make it easy for me to copy-paste a direct rebuttal.

forget the above paragraph if you're not the guy who I was responding to

My thoughts upon reading it are that he's a polite and naive man who didn't want to bitterly insult Intel when he could do nothing to them and who doesn't realize what's contradictory about his stance on software freedom if he considers freedom in terms of his own immediate circumstances to be important.

>>826024

Which has nothing to do with what we're talking about, namely whether BSD-licensed code can be relicensed under the GPL.

Unfortunately, OP started his post with this stupid misunderstanding, so we got sidetracked by it instead of being able to concentrate on the other stupid stuff in his post.

See this sort of GPL zealotry is why I use MIT and CC0 for my code. You can call me a cuck, that insult rolls off me like water off a duck's ass.

In my mind it's very simple: GPL tries to secure the freedom of users by taking away the freedom of developers. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and altruism, and taking offense on other people's behalf, and doing favors for people who never asked you to, etc.

If users don't use my original "cuck" licensed software but instead use a "stolen" non-free fork of it, then I as a dev have no moral obligation to protect their freedoms and the users can go fuck themselves because they chose the wrong distro and never cared enough to choose the right one. My fellow dev's freedoms shall not be infringed for the convenience of clueless users.

>>826038

I remember Creative Commons recommending not to use CC0 for software and GNU recommends using Apache v2.0 over MIT. Any idea why?

>>826040

I know about CC0, two reasons:

1. It was never intended to be used for code by CC therefore the legalese may not be "optimal".

2. CC0 doesn't grant patents which made the open-source people freak out about patent trolls not granting patents for a public domain dedication (which seems absurd but IANAL).

I do admit that Unlicense is probably a better choice than CC0 for the reasons above.

>>826038

>GPL tries to secure the freedom of users by taking away the freedom of developers

Freedom to do what, exactly? To take away the freedom of users AND OTHER DEVELOPERS. As a developer, I want my code and my freedom protected from greedy corporations and random assholes.

>>826045

Their fork doesn't belong to you, so it's not your call whether or not they take away freedoms. Keep your own project free and let users know that the fork isn't free. From then on it's the users choice. And if they choose the non-free fork there's two possibilities: 1) fuck them because they're stupid. 2) fuck you because your original version is inferior to the fork.

>>826045

>freedom is slavery

Typical gnussr ideologue

>>826046

>Their fork doesn't belong to you,

It's based on my work, so it sure as hell doesn't exclusively "belong" to them.

>so it's not your call whether or not they take away freedoms.

But it literally is my call. I decide my licensing. Deal with it.

>>826050

>individual freedom == group freedom

Anarkiddies, when will they learn?

>>826053

You group using my software faggot?

>>826051

If you forgive me for going philosophical (reddit spacing included):

Is it greed when people take something that you've given freely but they don't want to give anything back?

Is it NOT greed when you want to force people to give something they don't want to give freely?

>I decide my licensing. Deal with it.

And here we return to the thread's topic: I decide my licensing too, and it's MIT/CC0. Meaning that if you want to relicense my stuff under GPL I'll call your fork anti-freedom, which it is. Deal with it.

>>826068

>q1

Yes, it is greed. Thankfully the GPL license does not require you to give anything back to the person who gave it to you. You are free to make change that you see fit and even give them to other people. In that case you are still not required to give anything back to the creator.

>q2

It is greedy to force other people to give you something they don't want to. In the case that someone is hoarding all the changes to himself, the GPL does not impose any burden in giving all his super cool changes back to the creator, no matter how cool the creator thinks the changes are. If people are distributing the program to someone else, they would be forced to give away the source which the may not want to do.

>>826068

>Is it greed when people take something that you've given freely but they don't want to give anything back?

>Is it NOT greed when you want to force people to give something they don't want to give freely?

You don't HAVE to give ANYTHING back TO ANYONE if you fork GPL software. You can keep your shit to yourself.

The only thing the GPL asks for is that you provide source code upon distribution, which is not unreasonable, given that you stand to win nothing from withholding it (users can 'steal' your shit proprietary or not).

>>826068

>Is it greed

>Is it NOT greed

Who cares? It's in my interest to force people to share their code.

>if you want to relicense my stuff under GPL I'll call your fork anti-freedom

Good. I hope that the controversy will force people to consider what freedom really means.

>all these software libertardians

Permissive licenses are the libertarians of licenses. They pretend to be against the poz while tolerating its spread with their "they should be free to be pozzed as long as I'm free not to."

GPL on the other hand is completely against Jewish subversion of these programs' userbases by making the copyleft code stay copyleft instead of the obvious jew takes code, pays pajeet to write some new features that everyone will love, then makes it proprietary so that the goyim pay for their proprietary program instead of the original free version. Ironically, there is nothing communist (Jewish) about the GPL despite being a kike's idea.

Intellectual property is cancer anyway. Nobody should make a living off of a single work.

>>826046

Enjoy your BSD intel ME hardware and MIT smartphones then.

I'm sure you have no problem that intel, Samsung or google or any megacorps to owns what you buy after all communism is about them and you owning the same shit (except you don't own anything).

>>826372

>Nobody should make a living off of a single work.

more like nobody should make a living by being a rent-seeking parasite.

>>826002

Gay.

>>826002

Literally the only tranny I've ever seen that doens't know how to suck dick.

>>825994

>Not my fault you're autistically focusing on the wording when the meaning of what I said is clear

>autistically

anon, where do you think you are?

>>825994

>Not my fault you're autistically focusing on the wording when the meaning of what I said is clear.

its almost as if wording is the most important thing when it comes to legal documentation such as software licensing

>>826381

>free, freedom

I can kinda see your mistake anon but seriously Stallman is not even close to talking about what you think he is.

>>826501

>Anarchists are even more consistent versions of Stallman...

>muh true scotsman

>>826038

Protip: distributing proprietary software is harmful the freedom of the users. The GPL exists so that harmful people, i.e. people who distribute proprietary software, aren't allowed to fork the licensed software into software that harms the user's freedom.

>>826507

The fallacy is called "No True Scotsman", and it has nothing to do with what I said. An example of this fallacy:

>Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

>Person B: "But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge."

>Person A: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

It would be a No True Scotsman if Stallman called himself an anarchist and I asserted that he wasn't because real anarchists support x and he doesn't. Where did I do that? I didn't.

Read my post again.

>>826312

>>826372

>>826517

>GPL: Freedom, freedom, freedom! More freedom!

<MIT: Hello.

>GPL: That's too much freedom! The freedom to do wrongthing and wrongthink. Cuck freedom!

It's almost as if you're hypocritically promoting some freedoms whilst being against other freedoms. It's almost as if you are trying to take away certain people's bad freedoms, all with good intentions of course! Because we wouldn't want your influence and moral values to be confined to your own project. What's mine is yours, comrade, including your license.

>>826562

>GPL: All programs built with code under me are free software

<MIT: Some of the programs built with code under me are free, but some of them are proprietary

If you run into any old program on the street and you find out that its code was under the GPL license, you KNOW it is free software. If you it was instead a program with code under MIT license, you don't know if it's proprietary or not.

>>826562

Freedom Ain’t free.

The tree of liberty and freedom gotta be litterd with the blood of Google. Microsoft WINDOWS 10 aka “Wangblows” is not my oberating sysdem. it is nonfree and probbaly botnet as well :DD. GNU and linux not linux and SYSTEMD ok. praise Stallman.

>>826562

I'm all for promoting freedoms that are more essential than other freedoms. I believe that encouraging users to accept proprietary software is as harmful as encouraging users to accept a punch in the face; just because there are people who are happy to accept your punch doesn't mean that I consider your actions to benefit the freedom of society.

Proprietary software is immoral on the grounds that the users of proprietary software are encouraged to live their lives on their computers as helpless and divided servants to the owners of the proprietary software; users who choose proprietary software cannot live in freedom. Publishers who promote and encourage users to accept the terms of proprietary software are the people who are immoral.

>>826569

The that I like to put it is this:

with permissively licensed software, nobody can assume by default that the software is free software, you have to examine each individual title to ensure it is free software.

>>826501

No I mean free and freedom are not what you think they are. It's a super common mistake particularly for ideologues who aren't known for their curiosity or rigor.

>>826665

Great rebuttal there buddy. That is certainly an argument.

>>826673

>restrictive legal license regarding software distribution

>human liberty and values in society

I need to make an argument that these two things are completely different?

>>825994

>autistically focusing on the wording

Welcome to the world of law.

OP should make distro called GNU/Faggux.

>>826562

GPL is socialist, MIT is libertarian.

Currently, more people are running free socialist software on their computer than free libertarian software, and the former is often more secure, advanced and documented than the latter.

/liberty/ BTFO.

>>825934 (OP)

>implying GPL evangelists can out-code BSD supermen.

Drink more Stall-man cum faggot.

>>826732

Actually I just realized most of us run ancap software thanks to Tenenbaum, and it just goes to show that you get nothing in return when the one of the biggest CPU maker in the world don't even bother to respect your labor by crediting you in their manuals (thus infringing the BSD license).

>>828439

freedom means being free from having someone's brand of "freedom" being imposed on onesself

>>828450

So being a literal slave is true freedom, because nobody is claiming you fall under their definition of "free."

>>828483

I support GPL, but calling "BSD" meme licence slave labour is plain stupid. Most of the FOSS developers make the program for themselves and make available for free even if their time wasn't absolutely free. It's a personal decision, but copyleft is smarter way to release software if it's larger.

>>828450

So chugging down Steve Ballmer's cum is freedom?

>Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches

>[I want] to emphasize the competitive threat, and in some senses the competitive opportunity, that Linux represents. Linux is a tough competitor. There's no company called Linux, there's barely a Linux road map. Yet Linux sort of springs organically from the earth. And it had, you know, the characteristics of communism that people love so very, very much about it. That is, it's free. And I'm not trying to make fun of it, because it's a real competitive issue.

He's not imposing any definition of freedom on you! Would you look at that! Freedom from freedom!

Think of it, the endless reams of freedom from freedom when your MicroGoogleApple(R) brain-implanted chip makes you work forever and a day to make 1 little bit more of a computerized currency for the computerized avatars of long-dead stockholders! It's so meaningful and fulfilling!

Good thing you'll have never submitted to a definition of freedom made by that commiecuck Stallman and have therefore been free for the past 3 million years of hard work! War is peace, Freedom is slavery, Ignorance is strength!

>>828450

That's not what true freedom is at all

"where there is no law, there is no freedom" - John Locke

>>828529

>where there is no <restrictive copyright license that dictates how programs are to distributed>, there is no freedom

hmm really activates those almonds