No.

stallman hasnt done any real work since 1996

it is easy to him. he has been writing codes for a long time and unlike modern coders, were not taught babby's language like .NET.

if you work on it, it could be second nature to you too. alas, your presence on /g/ already precludes that.

It is easy if people would use Lisp, the most powerful programming language.

photoshop is not gnu software so your neighbor can't add it

GNU herd is still a sack of shit.

Well, coding programs on a lower level is not really harder. The logic is the same but the difference is that you need to understand how computers work. Today people focus solely on PHP, .NET, Ruby and stuff like that and the guts of a computer remain a mystery.

Stallman is a cancer. His zealotry is only hurting his cause.

GNU Herp is a good example; he wanted it in his own perfect/pure image and wasn't happy until it got there, so it took fucking ages and the world moved on.

He needs to take publicity classes, learn some fucking humility and adopt a more pragmatic character. He can stick around as some community figure, idc, but the FSF should disown him.

>http://talks.dixongroup.net/nycbsdcon2008/

This guy is a communist. Forcing freedom as he understands it.

>http://dpaste.org/Er09U/
Crazy dude

>>23085236
It is good that Stallman is so radical because he's so damn right. People are forced to bow to software licenses because if they don't they have major disadvantages in life. Stallman cannot argument with economy because his views are completely in contrast to today's software business models. He's a humanist and people that still understand themselves as true human beings will listen to him.

>>23085286
He's full of bullshit. Software under a real free license is MORE free than under his fucking GPL. But he won't agree, because he defines freedom in another way.

Even if a company takes over your work and sells it, then what? People can still get the code for free and without any fucking restrictive license that takes ages to read and understand.

Heck, even GPL projects don't respect fully the restrictions of the license. Especially the one that states you should comment in the code whatever you changed of the original project. And distribute it.
Oh, and if I build a binary + patches and want to distribute it as a custom dependency with my software, I have to use GPL on my software and provide the god damn code too, who cares? So much time lost, so shut up and hack. Stallman can go to hell, and bless people who rewrite from scratch GPL software because it's slowing innovation and software engineering.

>>23085554
> Software under a real free license is MORE free than under his fucking GPL.

Way to miss the fucking point. The one you replied to was talking about that the usual licenses remove the rights to the END-USER. The GPL doesn't restrict the end-user in any way.

>>23085286
i know that feel, bro. i know that fucking feel.

>use GPL software (or parts of) for your project
>give others the same oppurtunity and rights you had
>OMFG COMMUNIST
>OMFG HE'S INSANE

the fuck is wrong with you people?

>>23085591

Gives other? If others don't want? Oh wait, I know, they still get them.

It's a pain in the ass if you don't want them, if you want them, you can make your own license with just what you want.
If the source has a BSD license, then you can make this choice and it stays free.

With a GPL license, others have to comply. Rights comes with restrictions in the GPL. Freedom comes with no concession with BSD. Code, distribute and all you should care about is that your code stays free, your name stays known and you don't have to care about BS.
You really want to go to court if someone infringed your license? Go proprietary and make money.

Open source software will benefit more from an truly free license, developers just want to jump in and code, or just hack and redistribute for their own needs. How can a license think of all the possibilities? It's just fucking restrictive. And I bet neither of you read the GPLv3? I started and then realized it was horrid and more restrictive than any open source license.

>>23085729
oh jesus christ so much facepalm right now.

>>23085150
>implying anyone whose serious about coding isnt using the gnu c/c++ compiler at the minimum

>>23085729
I don't care if my name known, I don't want to be famous. I want my code and anything derived from it be viewable, to aid the community. A project where the source is closed doesn't aid the community, and tarnishes my name.

RMS is completely out of touch. Who cares what he says.

>>23085554
The BSD license is pointless. The license itself is very free but what good does it if the next redistribution uses a very unfree license? The GPL simply ensures that one that buys software has the same right as one that buys a car.

>>23085740
You realize your own stupidity? I see that you can't even elaborate your point of view.

In the end it's just a matter of opinion since GPLfags want their software to bear these rights and forks to inherit their restrictions. Why do you code? You want to make a good software? Then why do you care of anything else? ISC license and you're good to go, it's small and you won't have to care about anything else. You're free to loose your time and help RMS take over the software world though, have fun.

If stallman wasn't crazy, nobody would be talking about him. He's a marketing genius.

>>23085768
With the shit all the big companies are up to lately, RMS has been proven more relevant than ever before.

BSD zealots are completely retarded. Permissive licensing is for people who don't care one way or the other. Anyone who takes an ideological stance against GPL because it's "too restrictive" while pushing BSD is a mindless hypocrite.

>GPL: EVIL RESTRICTION ON YOUR FREEDOM
>Proprietary EULA: A-okay, thank you for pillaging our work.

Seriously, give it a rest. I'm sure nobody in this thread has ever programmed anything anyone else would want to incorporate anyway.

>implying a middle ground between bsd and gpl wouldnt be best

>>23085796
I would like to make good software, but it's pointless if it doesn't aid the community, and project where it's made into software that costs money and can only be run certain ways does not aid the community. On that note GPLv3 is insane, stick with GPLv2

>>23085767
Then used a BSD like license, people will be happier to take your code and do whatever they want with it. So it will be more used and appreciated in the end. And you won't have to care about anything else.

At first I was angry at RMS and the GPL because I was a fan of BSD licenses.
But recently I found myself being restricted by the GPL:

1) import pyqt4 and boom, your software has to be GPLv2
2) build qemu + patch qemu and boom, you can't redistribute the binary (it was for testing purpose and automated testing) withouth the whole sources and you HAVE TO COMMENT THE SOURCES with your changes
3) can't have whatever license i want with my software
4) can't redistribute a fork of a GPL sofware under BSD to free everyone else from this assle

Really, I didn't enjoyed anything about the GPL, and I'm using it.

>>23085818
this

>>23085796
>Why do you code? You want to make a good software?
Why I code and why and how I choose to distribute software are different things - For one, I don't need a license to code.
If I choose to release my program I will do it under the GPL because I want to make sure everyone will benefit from the 4 freedoms.

I've never understood why BSD gets so butthurt about GPL - proprietary fags I can understand, since they have an obvious reason dislike it - but BSD fags just seem confused and retarded.

>>23085833
I don't care how many people it aids, how many people use it, as long as I'm assured the people who do will be able to use it however they want and change what they want, if they can't program themselves they should be free to pay a programmer to change what they like.
Not going to give out my email but I am a commitor for Xfce4, btw

BSD zealots are selfish twats who think developer freedom is more important than user freedom. GPL zealots believe in software for the common good.

>>23085833
> 3) can't have whatever license i want with my software

Right. But you CAN choose between any license that doesn't restrict the GPL in any way.
So you can write a library which uses functions from another GPL'd library and still license it as BSD.

So I tried reading this thread to get a better idea about BSD and GPL licenses.
Damn. Big mistake.

Why do you think BSD doesn't care about user freedom?

The software is available for use. Anyone can modify it or redistribute it even in binary form (users might do this, like a teacher to his class). Users don't want the source BTW.

Also to the BSD zealots: If you were *truly* interested in writing completely free software, then you wouldn't use the BSD-license but the WTFPL.

But of course not, you want your name associated with the program source and you want others to have to mention it.
So even the BSD is not truly free.

>>23085871
GPL gives you the four essential freedoms, keeping your software free.

BSD makes you look cool if a corporation uses your software

>>23085890
But BSD also gives you all the freedom you want, right?

>>23085895
If you consider being able to restrict the freedoms of other a freedom, yes

>>23085895
If you consider being able to restrict the freedoms of others a freedom, yes.

>>23085871
Basic difference:
BSD: Your name must be kept (copyright note) and the software can be redistributed with or without source and with any (even restrictive) licenses.

GPL: If you redistribute it, you have to add the sourcecode, comment changes and the redistribution must also be under GPL. Earning money with distribution, guarentee or other services is allowed.

>>23085902
But GPLv3 does the same as far as licensing derivative works, no?
Fuck this shit.

>>23085886
Some BSD projects are using the ISC license.

If you don't want to put your name, just don't put it... When you copy the license your name is not on it is it? The license just protects you that's it. I'm sure you know though, it takes 1 minute to read it.

>>23085890
It all boils down to that. I don't care if a corporation takes my code. I will still have my software and it will still be free. If they just fork, then it doesn't matter, if they improve it significantly and sell it, well good, I participated to innovation.

It's just a philosophy...

MIT is master race license

>>23085911
You can charge to distribute gpl software, but if you distribute binaries you must distribute the source on request

I don't even use licenses. I just release my code and let the lawyers take care of it.

>>23085236
>no neckbears allowed in public
keep the self-hate up /g/

Consider two countries, both call themselves free.

In GPLland, salvery is illegal, and if you attempt to enslave someone you lose all your rights.

In BSDland owning slaves is legal, as long as they were free at some point in their life.

>>23085265
You could always--you know--choose not to use the GPL license, or GPL-licensed software.

Also, from your wording, you don't know what communism is.

>>23085940
Actually if you do that then NOBODY can use your code.

>>23085958
oh well. it's not like I write anything of value

>>23085940
60% of the ISC license is this:

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.

I strongly advice you use it... It will protect you from lawyers actually. Heard the story about the iranian programmer sentenced to death because someone used his software to upload porn?

>>23085918
>if they improve it significantly and sell it, well good, I participated to innovation.
work for free, someone else profits AND denies you the rights you gave them. sounds sustainable to me.

>>23085945
Not this guy but I feel discriminated because I fulfill all requirements to be considered a neckbeard but can't grow a neckbeard because of genetics.

>>23085958
Anyone can use any code they want, it's only if the rights holder actually takes any action against you that it matters.
So if you release your code without a license and just rely on default copyright and never peruse legal action against anyone using it you have effectively released your code into the public domain.
Although people will of course be reluctant to use your code because they're weary about legal consequences since you can - if you want to - at any time start suing people.

To those whiny bitches: there is also the LGPL. Also: The BSD is from a fucking university.

>>23086014
....and?

>>23085953
>>23085953
>>23085953
>>23085953
>>23085953

>>23086085
You can't compare people to software.

>>23086014
And? .... Approved by the OSI.
Besides, it could only be a good point that they came from a university. It's an innovation and engineering booster. The TCP/IP stack was released under BSD license and integrated elsewhere, as the IPSEC stack orignally. Under GPL it would have been impossible. And people would have to rewrite working code instead of just porting it. Waste of time...

>>23085953
Analogies don't always work. You failed to be objective.

BSD licenses aren't meant to support free software or even promote it. If you were a free software supporter, you would have licensed your work under a copyleft license, such as GPLv3. Using a BSD license instead means that you actually support proprietary software, since you give the developers of it the ability to use your code without redistributing its source.

You can use LGPL if you want developers of proprietary software to be able to link to your library. However, before doing that, think if it's really necessary. Sure, it's good that you'd be pulling proprietary software developers towards free software a bit, but, if you had licensed it under GPL, then these developers would have to release their software as free if they wanted to use your library. I recommend using LGPL for the earlier versions of a library, then switch to GPL for the new releases once you have a few proprietary software packages using it.

>>23086098
But that would make me feel a bit butthurt if I had written the BSD TCP/IP stack. Then again, why would I care. Then I wouldn't be butthurt. But it would be cool if I got to have the changes they made. Which is where LGPL kicks in. But would they use it if it was LGPL in the first place? Probably not.
Licensing is dicks.

>>23086097
Hi, I'm a mac and I'm a pc

>>23086098
This makes absolutely no sense.

>>23086098
It would have been hilarious to see the TC/IP stack under GPL(with a patent so you have to use GPL) I mean, just imagine the chaos, everyone knowing theirs is better and desperately trying not to use it, while everyone installs it and makes it a standard to big corporations dismay, wonder what would even have happened

Why are BSDfags afraid of freedom?