/tech/ - Technology★

>>998930 (OP)

I prefer to use public domain software as it cucks me the least, I prefer to write proprietary software because it allows me to cuck the most. Following this pattern:

- GPL users are cucks, GPL developers are not cucked

- BSD developers are cucks, BSD users are not cucked

Why would I have a favorite? Each license is a tool that serves its own purpose

I license my software under GPL3+ because I don't want to contribute to people who fork my software into proprietary software.

MIT

less words than BSD, makes it easy for me and someone else to understand

GPL

a lot of words but i think it's there for a reason, i'm not a lawyer so don't ask me

>>998934

>make an image editor and license it as GPL

>oh hey i need to edit a funny image in an image editor

>accidentally use your own image editor

>cuck yourself

yep, it makes sense

>>998950

If you want to understand the GPL, then all you have to do is read the preamble. There is nothing in the GPL that contradicts the preamble and in fact, the license is written specifically to support what the preamble says.

>>998951

>licenses are granted by copyright holders to themselves

nope

>>998954

wait are you serious?

>>998934

BSD users are still gay, though.

GPL because of freedoms

Public Domain because of freedoms

>>998957

Are you memeing? If you hold the copyright of something, you can do anything you like with it. Licenses are granted to others so they can use your copyrighted thing under the terms of the license.

Unlicense every time. I believe in 100% Libre software and not software communism like the GPL provides.

>>998977

>I want my software to be free, but I don't care if everyone else can produce proprietary software from it

>I don't like degeneracy, but I don't care if everyone else is degenerate

Typical lolberg.

>>998930 (OP)

> MIT

If it's something too small to relevant or something I don't care about. The MIT license is simple and allows anyone to just run with it without getting tangled up in obligations.

> GPL

If it's something actually useful I don't want others to just grab the source and use it for something proprietary.

>>998930 (OP)

GPL because fuck code-stealing businesses.

To be less of a shill, The Commons must be protected from those who would parasitically steal and privatize code that was released to the public in good faith. In a perfect world I could release code and all could benefit, but as long as Embrace Extend Extinguish is a thing I have to do all this bullshit.

GPL v3 or later, because noncopyleft licenses help corporations gain the power over software users. Just see all these open sore frameworks and programs, they're always noncopyleft, so (((they))) can make it proprietary, if it is convenient to them. It looks good and they still have the power.

GPLv3, because it hurts the people intellectual property law is enforced by and makes more code open source.

We have this kind of thread every other week.

>be GPL

>shove dildos up my ass

>haha now nobody can put a dildo up my ass

>>998934

>GPL developers are not cucked

>>998930 (OP)

I usually use MIT or my own license.

MIT because it's non-restrictive, my own because sometimes I want to cuck people who share my proprietary software

WTFpl.

hardmode: Cause i'm not a faggot who cares about bullshit legalize.

ABRMS, the Anyone But Richard M Stallman license. I like it because it guarantees your software freedom so long as you're not rms, making it a good license for most people.

>>998930 (OP)

Apache license, because it protect me against patent issues.

I don't release my code as open source and only use it personally so I never need a license

.t bot developer

>>999042

If someone's going to shove something up your ass either way. Your choice is to shove up a dildo yourself, or have twenty corporate faggots shove their dicks up your ass. Which do you prefer?

>>999204

> my own license

Unless you had your license written by a lawyer, it will be full of loopholes.

>>998930 (OP)

>bear gets fat and depressed

Well, that hit a little too close to home.

>>998930 (OP)

Maximum Copyleft using AGPL-3 for maximum freedom and least cucking by proprietary software.

>>999331

Cucked for users, not cucked for you the developer.

AGPL because fuck saasfags

AGPL is the only one with great potential

>>998949

this

If only GNU had the bigger and better botnet lord to check which ones stole and proprietarized your code so you can legally put them off.

>>998930 (OP)

All Rights Reserved with no license file

capitalist kikes will stay the fuck away from the product of my sweat because they're rulecucks and I can DMCA anyone else I don't like that tries to use it

Unlicense, WTFpl, BSD 2.0, MIT, Apache, Apple Public Source, then ABRMS

>>999514

These kinds of people will always exist, those who don't care about the rules and take the quick way to get a quick buck. The act of reversing other people's binaries is actually a specialist skill within the already specialist skill of writing computer programs. The people who would be the best at detecting infringements are the original authors and the people who specialize in reversing binaries. These people would have to become familiar with the field of software titles that cover the line of functionality that the GPL software covers and then they'd have to compare the functionality of those other titles to the GPL software. To do this is not a trivial task.

>>999520

This of course for the purpose of preserving freedom.

We don't need licences in a world without IP

>>998930 (OP)

MIT

Because it's the only actually free license.

>>998930 (OP)

>Anon, what is your preferred software license?

GPL

>Hard mode: Tell why

GPL is a license that self perpetuates freedom.

It's the only license that perpetuates for users/developers the freedom to execute, read, edit and distribute.

Besides that we can't note that the GPL has a very good compatibility scheme, it's compatible with most popular licenses.

>Anon, what is less preferred software license?

Bedsides the WTFPL which is a meme license, basically all permissive licenses like the MIT/BSD.

>Hard mode: Tell why

MIT and BSD are license that are essentially a do what you want license like the GPL. With the exception of ==BUT== but only if the developers want too. Thus the freedom developers have acquired with the MIT/BSD can be removed for you. Biggest example of that is the MINIX3 microkernel which is used on all Intel motherboards and fucking with everyone.

>>998953

This.

>>999585

>If I had you an apple but say you can only eat half of it I have taken away your freedom

BSD license.

Because I want to sell my folk software not to reveal its source code.

>>999601

>If I had you

>making an example with food for tools

Here's a example with a bucket.

GPL

Everyone can use, study, copy and share this bucket even the ones that are copied/modified.

MIT/BSD

Everyone can use, study, copy and share this bucket. But only if the developers wants too.

The reason for why food is not a good example is that it is not duplicable like a tools. You have to wait for it to grown. That's something communists haven't figured yet.

>>999639

>I give you a program but say you can't run it on Saturday.

By your retard logic I have now deprived you of something despite you have strictly more options now.

>>999645

The reason why the GNU GPL exists is to dissuade people from forking GPL software into proprietary software. Having the objective increase in proprietary software choices is not an ideal supported by the FSF. People are free to operate the GPL software and study the software as much as they want. People are free to distribute copies of the GPL software as long as they haven't forked the software into a proprietary software distribution. If the software is forked into a proprietary software distribution, the GPL licensee will forfeit their distribution license under the GPL.

>>999651

>I have a firefox binary on my computer

>I give it to you

Yeah anon >>999645 applies all the same

>>999645

>you can drive for below minimum wage for uber now, so you have more options now

>you should be thanking your benevolent master

Maybe we should reinstate slavery, after all it's just giving more options. You just want to set yourself up as the proprietor of software that people depend upon to extract rent from them. You offer and heavily market a seemingly appealing (thanks due huge venture capital) "option" that gets wildly adopted to prevent a public solution from ever gaining traction by being "lesser" seen from an individual, short-sighted perspective, even though if everyone would invest into that instead everyone except the current leeches/owners would be much better off. With the amount of money Europe is pouring into MS for example we could easily have made free alternatives just as good without having to perpetually pay rent and be treated like slaves, but it is the path of least resistance to continue as is and with all the money MS has they can just lobby the government to let them keep their fangs in us.

>>999651

>Having the objective increase in proprietary software choices is not an ideal supported by the FSF.

This. Neoliberals can not imagine that some do not think as they do. Stallman says that he would not want to forbid proprietary software and that people should simply choose to reject it. That would be ideal, but in reality people are retarded and think what the people with the better propaganda machine tell them to think, so if I were in power I would forbid proprietary software and let everyone who tries to make it anyway be hunted down.

>>999656

>Maybe we should reinstate slavery, after all it's just giving more options

As long as it is strictly one more voluntary option. Anyone should be allowed to kill themselves, sell themselves into slavery, take cocaine, etc.

>>999656

>Yes goy you don't deserve the freedom to decide let us decide actually your freedom is slavery goy

Obviously dual MIT/Apache-2.0

https://github.com/autumnai/rust-cudnn/issues/10

>>999678

>The rich would just fire people from expensive regular employment contracts with social security etc. and just rehire them as slaves because it would be cheaper

Have you ever considered that you would have the freedom to work for someone else, including yourself?

>>999678

>1. Free will doesn't exist

I agree :^).

>Even in practical terms people are not free

<hurr durr I got a firefox binary from you instead of firefox source now you are oppressing me

>>999678

>The rich would just fire people from expensive regular employment contracts with social security etc. and just rehire them as slaves because it would be cheaper.

<Capitalist society is so wasteful and throws away the majority of food but living without work is impossible and labor will always become slavery

okay commie whatever

>>999690

1. All the others would do it too, or they get outcompeted

2. Modern production with high complexity and degree of labour division is not almost always not feasible for an individual. And even if it is, large corporations have economies of scale on their side and can thanks to their huge capital reserves always undercut you until your business can not survive anymore.

>>999693

What a stupid example, firfox is Free Software. You can't use the sane control panal on win10 and have to use that mobileshit. Wher is your freedom to change it?

>>labor will always become slavery

Nice strawman there you neoliberal weasel. Labour is productive and necessary. Parasites diverting part of the produced wealth to themselves without providing labour in exchange and only a fraction to the worker are neither necessary nor worth of being let alive.

>>999696

>What a stupid example, firfox is Free Software.

What so you are going to go get it from someone else? Great! Now fuck off.

>You can't use the sane control panal on win10 and have to use that mobileshit.

Which is why I don't use it.

>Wher is your freedom to change it?

I can edit the binary or use an alternative like this Linux machine I am not.

>Nice strawman there you neoliberal weasel.

I am a advocate of modern Chinese communism actually.

>Labour is productive and necessary.

Agreed.

>Parasites diverting part of the produced wealth to themselves without providing labour in exchange and only a fraction to the worker are neither necessary nor worth of being let alive.

Yes I agree. Lets kill the elderly and welfare whores. They are a drag on society.

Even many workers don't produce anything tangible. A lot of things are busy work, or just bureaucratic hurdles or similarly useless things when you get down to it. But that's not all. Look at all the software, even most hardware made today: it's utter garbage. There's no net benefit to anyone except those who gain from the sales in an unending cycle of shitty products designed to fail and be replaced (built-in obscolescence). They have no reason to make good long-lasting products, because that would kill future sales.

>>999678

>1. Free will doesn't exist

And yet you choose to post here.

>are not free because they need basic things like housing and sustenance to survive

Same thing as air and water. By your logic I guess you're slave to trees and rivers.

> nobody who has any other option would "voluntarily choose" to become a slave.

Topkek this is only true to people who can't even use a rock to cut a fruit. Or in some feudal system where you can't harvest a piece of land for yourself. Or that 100% of the population is against everyone and people who think that are either schizo or depressed.

>>999706

>They have no reason to make good long-lasting products, because that would kill future sales.

That's true. Production is currently done in a way to maximize profit instead of serving actual needs of common humans. Machines from the DRR still last to this day, while modern crap dies shortly after the warranty runs out, the failing point careful chosen as to minimize

lifespan while reducing warranty cases.

>>999826

>>1. Free will doesn't exist

>And yet you choose to post here.

So because something happened it must have been a choice? Does the rain chose to fall down?

>>Same thing as air and water. By your logic I guess you're slave to trees and rivers.

No you can't be slave of non-humans, they do not prevent you from accessing them. If they privatized the water supply you could be slave to the "water owners" though.

>>Or in some feudal system where you can't harvest a piece of land for yourself.

This is pretty much where things are going though. Have you seen the recent developments in land prices?

>>999331

>>999507

>AGPL

I totally agree.

>>999504

How does the user get cucked by any *GPL?

MIT.

It doesn't make it hard for people to use my software.

>>999865

>How does the user get cucked by any *GPL?

GPL is strictly restricting my freedom. For example if I want to upload a binary to my website for people that is illegal.

>>1000062

You can distribute binaries, but you must also provide the source code for your customized version of the software.

>>998930 (OP)

why can I relate to that bear, I'm not even fat

>>1000064

So again, I want to upload a binary to my site and that is illegal.

If someone said, "you are free to go into the park, but you have to go down the slide 50 times if you do" that is known as a restriction of freedom compared to "you are free to go to the park".

>>1000079

In the very detailed scenario you have laid out, it is completely legal for you to upload a binary of a GPL licensed program to your site.

>>1000062

As soon as you distribute software, that is not the act of a user but a distributor. The GPL does not restrict your freedom as a user. The GPL restricts your authority as a distributor and that is not a matter of your freedom as a user.

>>1000082

>it is completely legal for you to upload a binary of a GPL licensed program to your site.

No it is not. I will be sent to the courts for not doing a bunch of extra shit.

>>1000119

Right so if a license totally banned distribution that would not be restricting the users. After all that is an act of distribution. Great idea.

>>1000141

protip: the GPL is not a usage license, it is a software conveyancing license

>>1000141

I don't understand how you can take the time and effort to distribute a GPL binary program but you cannot attach the associated source code to the distribution. Truly, this is a mystery for the ages.

>>1000166

>protip: the GPL is not a usage license, it is a software conveyancing license

TLDR: Banning all distribution would not be restricting usage.

>>1000167

I could. I don't want to.

>>998930 (OP)

/dev/null

>>999520

I hope most of the people here are memeing in semantics. Because otherwise it's fucking sad.

>hurr GPL is intolerant towards me as a proprietary developer

Well, duh, just don't do evil then and you'll be fine.

>>1000248

>Uploading a firefox binary to my website is evil

You GPLcucks sure have a warped sense of morality.

>>1000264

Not at all. It is people who distribute proprietary software have a warped sense of morality. Just don't distribute proprietary software then and you'll be fine.

>>1000265

>Uploading a firefox binary to my website is evil

<It is people who *upload a firefox binary to their website that are evil*. Just don't *upload a raw firefox binary to your website* and you'll be fine.

So you ironically believe this. Behold /tech/ the state of the GPLtard.

>>1000271

*unironically

#fuckdeletion

>>1000271

That's actually a strawman argument. I'll tell you my actual position: distributing a proprietary Firefox binary is evil.

>>1000328

What is not a strawman is that user cucking gpl makes uploading a Firefox binary to my blog illegal.

>>1000328

>Giving you a binary is evil

Wow lad

>>1000333

That's outright false. There is no lawyer who would argue this interpretation and expect it to be accepted. That's because the GPL doesn't work that way.

>>1000334

This is still a strawman

>>1000342

>That's because the GPL doesn't work that way.

It sure as fuck works that way. You are not allowed to distribute a binary without also including the source.

>This is still a strawman

Which part specifically.

>>1000141

You're acting idiotic because you like your little argument that you came up with. Don't get too attached to it because it is pure shit. Of course you can distribute a binary of a GPL program. If you have made no modifications the source is accessible to the user from the place where you got the source. If you re-brand the program or make other modifications, yes you better fucking provide the source code you fucking leech.

>>1000424

>edit one line of code

>upload binary to my blog

>this is illegal

gpltards actually believe this should happen

WTFPL because fuck you

Who gives a shit man, just use the license you think is most appropriate for the software you're making, and stop putting MIT licenses on your stupid bash scripts on github.

>>1000426

I agree. GPL shills will hate you for this though.

>>1000345

A link to the source is enough, you braindead retard. NixOS' build systen pulls source codes straight from the... eell, the source. They do not mirror it and so far they have had no problems distributing the binaries.

In case you do not link the source, you are ways politely asked to hand it. A "surprise trial" would go nowhere when you can claim human error and provide the link then, so nobody does it, not even for trolling purposes.

>>1000430

>I want it to be illegal for you to upload a firefox binary to your blog and I am going to add 50 qualifiers to make it seem reasonable.

nice try anon

>>1000431

>>1000425

Once again, you're still committing a strawman. Uploading a binary is not illegal. Distributing a copyrighted work without authority is illegal.

>>1000345

>You are not allowed to distribute a binary without also including the source.

This is correct. GPL licensees are perfectly allowed to upload a GPL binary to their blog. What licensees are not allowed to do is to distribute a proprietary GPL program.

>>1000639

No you fuckwit. Uploading a raw firefox binary to a blog is NOT legal. And your insane license is what prevents this.

>This is correct.

<Complains about strawman.

<Says I am actually correct

okay bud

>>1000726

Are you retarded? This has nothing to do with the GPL, but the fact that the Firefox branding is proprietary. See the bindist USE flag in Gentoo.

>>1000729

Ah anon great! I did not realize the GPL allowed me to distribute an executable without providing access to the modified source. I will tell my buddy Bill Gates at Microsoft and we will take advantage of that!

>>999223

>Your choice is to shove up a dildo yourself, or have twenty corporate faggots shove their dicks up your ass

this is genuinely what license fags believe. Uncuck your homosexual mind retard.

MIT, public domain and maybe LGPL because:

1. afaik there is no real way to prove that someone is using your gpl code in his closed-source software so you might aswell use something permissive that wont cuck the people that actually want to follow your license

2. people should use free software because they want to and because it is moral, not because they are enforced

3. software projects should be made for joy of the creator and user with honesty and not as means to sell your propaganda

>>998930 (OP)

CC0 or MIT

>>998930 (OP)

BSD

-Simply because of results. It's the best of both worlds. FOSS, but corps are allowed to do what they want as well and take a top down approach and force a particular Vision TM. To this day, nothing in GNU world has made as solid of a desktop OS as OS X.. or game console like the PS4 (I think even Nintendo's Switch uses BSD as well).

>>1000775 Yeah, BSD has many commercially successful gadgets. But Linux also includes Android that is the most successful mobile OS!

I release my shit under BSD, MIT or TAPR-OSHL

Why:

I like proven licenses with freedom in them. GPL and it's variants have annoying restrictions, so I don't use them for my personal projects.

I don't particularly care what people use them for, thus BSD.

>>1000804

Android is less and less free. Google as been steadily transferring more and more functionality from AOSP to their proprietary layers.

In the name of compatibility, security and usability.

>>1000729

You keep engaging the troll/retard. He keeps saying lies and at no moment has pointed to the license itself.

The GPLv3 is certainly longer than BSD or MIT style licenses, but it's no bank contract; it can still be read in a few minutes.

>https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html

>6. Conveying Non-Source Forms.

>You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in one of these ways:

>d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no further charge. You need not require recipients to copy the Corresponding Source along with the object code. If the place to copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party) that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source. Regardless of what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements.

In other words, you can provide access to binaries, but you have to point to the source code as well. Either you provide the source code in your server, or you link to a server where the source code is available.

The section 7 of the GPLv3 points to additional terms such as requiring that *derivative* works don't use the trademarks of the base work, but for *verbatim* copies there's no such restriction. If you do a small change that doesn't merit a complete rebranding (e.g. removing Pocket from Firefox), then the Firefox people *could* ask you that you clearly mark your Firefox version as a modified one instead.

>>1000842

Aka for the 50th time uploading a binary to my blog is illegal. Your license says it right there. Inb4 it does not count becausee you can also do xyz.

>>1000857

So what's the problem, lazy nigger? Can't point to the source you used? What's your argument for this restriction being bad?

>>1000857

No you're still wrong. You're conflating uploading with distributing. One is not the same as the other. It is possible to do one without doing the other because they are not the same activity.

>>1000908

His argument is that, "freedom means I can refuse to distribute the source code".

>>1000927

>uploading a binary to my blog for others to download is not distributing the binary

how fucking retarded are you

>>1001092

If you're going to distribute a binary on your blog, then say you're going to distribute it. Uploading and distributing are not the same things.

>>1001093

You GPLfags are totally brain dead. What kind of retard reads

>uploading to my blog

as

>uploading to a file server that no one else can access

and you GPL fags want it to be illegal to share the binary with anyone that reads it

>>998930 (OP)

BSD or MIT because license compatibility.

>>1000062

Yes, faggot, this is what having responsibilities is like. If you don't want them, just don't use a license at all. You're posting a fucking binary without the source code after all, for all people know it might be some malware.

MIT because I don't support the GPL's communistic ideals.