File: 1338735849639.png-(48 KB, 400x290, IMG_0315[1].png)

>hackforums
>good
>any year

File: 1338735859422.png-(91 KB, 400x400, Lugia.png)

bump

>>25282630
That's why I am trying to get away from it

File: 1338735970873.png-(22 KB, 300x300, 1337888941580.png)

Subtle.

Sure buddy.
Let me license your BSD project under a proprietary license then, since I can do whatever I want with it.

There are tons of great places but

1) If you can't find them yourself you're probably not welcome (you are to them what the hackforums guys are to you)
2) Trolling GNU makes me not want to help you

>>25282644
And you did, welcome to /g/!

>>25282658
I have nothing wrong with GNU plus Linux, I just found the picture funny. Sorry if I offended you. And to your first point, if I ever look up tech forums I just get a bunch of ricing skids.

File: 1338736231833.png-(557 KB, 800x670, Y3_5.png)

>>25282656~
In that case they are licensing their own changes under whatever license. They do not magically remove *your project* from existence just because they make some changes and license their changes under a different license (which they should have every right to).

"The BSD License allows proprietary use, and for the software released under the license to be incorporated into proprietary products. Works based on the material may be released under a proprietary license or as closed source software."
The GNU GPL permit to avoid this bad point.

es sei denn, Sie sprechen Deutsch Ich kann mir nicht helfen

>>25282696
I can had one line of code and then released it under a proprietary license, and optionally sue you for releasing part of my project under your own license.
Nothing can stop me from doing this.

>>25282697~
If people wish to release *their* (note that they are not releasing your code, as it is still available from you under your original license) code under whatever license, they should be able to.

If their changes are good, people will use their code, even if it is not under a freetard license.

If their changes are bad or really simple, you can just make the same changes with no effort, and people will pick your open source alternative that does just the same as the proprietary alternative.

People have the right to do with what they produce what they wish to.

>>25282724
>I can had one line of code and then released
fullretard.xcf
I can add one line of code to your project*

File: 1338736446373.png-(2 KB, 440x63, neru.png)

>>25282728

File: 1338736484759.png-(537 KB, 800x736, Y2_20c.png)

>>25282724~
>I can had one line of code and then released it under a proprietary license and optionally sue you for releasing part of my project under your own license.

Except that does not really work out. The reverse would in that case also be true.

>I can have one line of code and release it under GPL, and then sue anyone who uses it under a proprietary license.

>>25282744~
Quit posting that.

>>25282728

You wouldn't have any issue with the GPL or any related licenses if proprietary code didn't exist. Stallman, through the GPL, wants to make sure that all the code is free and is kept free, this has nothing to do with whatever vision of "freedom" you think. Freedom is not "do what the fuck you want, I don't care", because doing so would mean that you'd be able to fuck over other people (see: proprietary code) because "you're free to be a jerk". Freedom is related to code, it's all about free code (see the 4 rules).

Now, if proprietary code were "illegal" and shipping software required also source code and GPL-compatible licensing, then we wouldn't need any GPL license anymore, because everything would be free and available for everyone.

However we live in a world where corporations and proprietary developers are always looking for a way to screw over other companies/the users/other developers, stealing their code, adapting it and then re-selling it, hiding backdoors, hiding viruses/malware/botnet/whatever in order to damage the end user.
Running programs that don't let you access the source code is equivalent to eating food where the recipe is unknown. Who knows what kind of poison you'd be ingesting? As far as I know (at least where I come from, the EU) selling food without a list of the ingredients is illegal, why would it be different for software?

If you don't use GPL you're indirectly supporting proprietary software because you give a chance to other developers/companies to "steal" (it's not literally steal, since your "freedom" license allows it) your code and release it as proprietary, which in turn helps spreading more non-free proprietary software.

>>25282696
>>25282728
>>25282753
>~
That tilde is ruffling my jonnies or however that shitty /v/ meme goes

>>25282753
>I can have one line of code and release it under GPL, and then sue anyone who uses it under a proprietary license.
Make more sense since you can't see the code of what's released under the proprietary, and therefore make you unable to sue them.

dream in code.

>>25282759~
If people wish to contribute by releasing their source, it should be as a result of them willingly doing so. Not as a result of someone pointing a gun at them and telling them to.

Forcing people do do stuff does not really result in contributions as a result of good intentions.

>>25282792~
The FSF seems to be able to sue people still.

>>25282766
>not filtering Neru

>>25282812
It's not their code if it has somebody else's code in it which would be the reason for them having to release under GPL.
You wouldn't have any issue with the GPL or any related licenses if proprietary code didn't exist. Stallman, through the GPL, wants to make sure that all the code is free and is kept free, this has nothing to do with whatever vision of "freedom" you think. Freedom is not "do what the fuck you want, I don't care", because doing so would mean that you'd be able to fuck over other people (see: proprietary code) because "you're free to be a jerk". Freedom is related to code, it's all about free code (see the 4 rules).

Now, if proprietary code were "illegal" and shipping software required also source code and GPL-compatible licensing, then we wouldn't need any GPL license anymore, because everything would be free and available for everyone.

However we live in a world where corporations and proprietary developers are always looking for a way to screw over other companies/the users/other developers, stealing their code, adapting it and then re-selling it, hiding backdoors, hiding viruses/malware/botnet/whatever in order to damage the end user.
Running programs that don't let you access the source code is equivalent to eating food where the recipe is unknown. Who knows what kind of poison you'd be ingesting? As far as I know (at least where I come from, the EU) selling food without a list of the ingredients is illegal, why would it be different for software?

If you don't use GPL you're indirectly supporting proprietary software because you give a chance to other developers/companies to "steal" (it's not literally steal, since your "freedom" license allows it) your code and release it as proprietary, which in turn helps spreading more non-free proprietary software.

>>25282812
>Forcing people do do stuff does not really result in contributions as a result of good intentions.
Too bad you're wrong.
See:
All GPL software

The only freedom GPL constricts is the freedom of someone who wants to take GPLd code and have it vanish into a closed source black box.

The idea behind the GPL is a bit like this:
Proprietary projects have large funding so they can create pretty much anything.

Free people like hackers have no such luck (though there are many funded GPL projects out there, but let me finish) they have no access to big teams and have obviously no access to proprietary code without all that big funding.

So all they have is their free code.
And the GPL is made so hackers can have a growing library of tools they can use while the people with proprietary intent cannot use those libraries and tools to bolster their closed source projects by assimilating them and should they make any improvements to the software will never see them again.
GPL disallows this.

MIT and BSD etc does.

The GPL is insurance against theft for every free developer since you can only grow and collaborate well if the source is easily distributable over large networks and people and the GPL ensures, since anyone can download the source, that only the free people can actually use it.

Assholes.

>>25282888
BUT BUT MUH MUH NEGATIVE FREEDOM!

>>25282857~
>It's not their code if it has somebody else's code in it
Not the entirety of it, but parts of it. The code that is somebody elses could be distributed alongside the changes and could be distributed under GPL. The changes could be distributed under whatever.

>>25282857~
>However we live in a world where corporations and proprietary developers are always looking for a way to screw over other companies/the users/other developers, stealing their code, adapting it and then re-selling it, hiding backdoors, hiding viruses/malware/botnet/whatever in order to damage the end user.
Except that is not true. A lot of developers release code under proprietary licenses because they need an income. Earning money from open source just does not work for most people.

>>25282864~
All GPL software is not a result of people being forced to release under GPL. Some people willingly released under GPL.

>>25282888~
If someone spends a lot of time to make something better, it should be up to them whether or not they wish to share their changes.

>>25282935
If someone spends a lot of time to make something better, it should be up to them which license they want to use.
YOUR BATTLE SHIP HAS BEEN SUNK!

>>25282888
Remember TCP/IP?
Released under BSD.
If it had been released under GPL, it would have disappeared into a void, because the major Closed-Source operating systems would have just developed their own standard that would now be running the world.
GPL ensures that only 100% GPL users want to touch your code.
BSD ensures that your code is available to ANYBODY who wants it. This spreads use and knowledge of your code, and will result in even more FOSS forks and extensions than GPL ever would.

>>25282935
You wouldn't have any issue with the GPL or any related licenses if proprietary code didn't exist. Stallman, through the GPL, wants to make sure that all the code is free and is kept free, this has nothing to do with whatever vision of "freedom" you think. Freedom is not "do what the fuck you want, I don't care", because doing so would mean that you'd be able to fuck over other people (see: proprietary code) because "you're free to be a jerk". Freedom is related to code, it's all about free code (see the 4 rules).

Now, if proprietary code were "illegal" and shipping software required also source code and GPL-compatible licensing, then we wouldn't need any GPL license anymore, because everything would be free and available for everyone.

However we live in a world where corporations and proprietary developers are always looking for a way to screw over other companies/the users/other developers, stealing their code, adapting it and then re-selling it, hiding backdoors, hiding viruses/malware/botnet/whatever in order to damage the end user.
Running programs that don't let you access the source code is equivalent to eating food where the recipe is unknown. Who knows what kind of poison you'd be ingesting? As far as I know (at least where I come from, the EU) selling food without a list of the ingredients is illegal, why would it be different for software?

If you don't use GPL you're indirectly supporting proprietary software because you give a chance to other developers/companies to "steal" (it's not literally steal, since your "freedom" license allows it) your code and release it as proprietary, which in turn helps spreading more non-free proprietary software..

>>25282935
The only freedom GPL constricts is the freedom of someone who wants to take GPLd code and have it vanish into a closed source black box.

The idea behind the GPL is a bit like this:
Proprietary projects have large funding so they can create pretty much anything.

Free people like hackers have no such luck (though there are many funded GPL projects out there, but let me finish) they have no access to big teams and have obviously no access to proprietary code without all that big funding.

So all they have is their free code.
And the GPL is made so hackers can have a growing library of tools they can use while the people with proprietary intent cannot use those libraries and tools to bolster their closed source projects by assimilating them and should they make any improvements to the software will never see them again.
GPL disallows this.

MIT and BSD etc does.

The GPL is insurance against theft for every free developer since you can only grow and collaborate well if the source is easily distributable over large networks and people and the GPL ensures, since anyone can download the source, that only the free people can actually use it.

>>25282888
Seriously, how does allowing free code to be absorbed into proprietary codebases help anyones freedom?

The moment free code gets pulled into proprietary code the whole community loses potential talent that works with the code.

If free code is forced to be free then the community who most probably helped getting the software started gets changes and improvements back.

So while 'the free code still exists when BSD code gets absorbed' it doesn't help anyone but the fucking thieves.

>>25282961
LGPL

File: 1338737495133.png-(485 KB, 800x604, Y3_9.png)

>>25282967~
I already responded to that post two times.

>>25282979~
For fuck sake you guise.

>>25282967
> "you're free to be a jerk"
You are free to be a jerk. Do you want the US to become the UK, where you can go to jail for an offensive remark on Twitter?
>free code (see the 4 rules)
You don't want freedom, you want GNU/Freedom

>>25282888
This

>>25282911
ok landuke, LAS comes on today

in the meantime, seriously, give it a listen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNBMdDaYhZA&t=7m0s

even i don't 100% agree with this freedom, but i applaud him for his vocal stances on thing, and hindsight. He does have weird mannerism, but he tells it like it is. Too many people are personalable, while at least this man tells you the history, and why be beleives what he believes.

BSD lincese aren't bad, not even gona hate. With little common desktop projects being in gnu or bsd license, i think we need to create similarity, rather than diversion.

While some good software most people use day to day (apache, webservers,etc) run these license, the average user might not even be aware or even run this software personally.

>>25282997
And obviously didn't read them because you said points that have been addressed.

>>25282564
>Do you guys know of any good tech related forums
/g/ is pretty good.

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

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

>>25282989
>LGPL
So you are only allowed to treat it like a proprietary library?
You're only allowed to use the code, not improve it.

>>25283086
>You're only allowed to use the code, not improve it.
Only if you want to use it for proprietary software.

>>25283099
Or if you want your changes released under a sane license.
Is there even a way around that? Use a diff to cache my changes, and give instructions on how to merge my BSD changes with the GPL base?
I release my code to Everybody not just GNU users. I don't ascribe to the notion of a special little hacker club. Everybody deserves freedom, even the freedom to be a jerk.

>>25282961

You seem to forget the hundreds of proprietary TCP/IP bullshit packages that came with every different manufacturer's equipment.

File: 1338738103507.jpg-(67 KB, 500x313, shutup-and-take-my-money..jpg)

>>25283086
advise a more restrictive license to accomdate authors protection

>But you rescritcted me, this isn't freedom

Well, you don't understand you have to give up some freedom when dealing with non-free software...

IE you have to give up something to have something protected, afterall that was what you asked for...

It seems the only argument against GPL is:

>waaah, this library is GPL'd, I can't steal it and sell it as my own code.

It's fucking hard to NOT use GPL code apparently.

>>25283141
>Or if you want your changes released under a sane license.
Well, thing is, when you chose to use a LGPL library, you were aware of its license. You knew that your changes could only be released under a compatible license.
You should have thought of that first, not come crying afterwards.

>>25283150

>implying AppleTalk was not the best TCP/IP implementation invented

>>25283171~
>I can't steal it and sell it as my own code.
But nobody said that. They are selling their own code, not the original library.

If they were selling the original library, they would not sell anything - The original library is already available for free.

>>25283150
Exactly my point. Without the initial BSD release, there would have been no support, and it would have gone nowhere.
I support an environment in which proprietary software dies because the consumers don't buy the shit. Because consumers are smart enough to judge their freedom, not because it's forced out of existence because of ridiculous licensing.
In other words, you are allowed to be a jerk, but you don't do it because it's wrong to do and people won't like you, not because the government is going to fuck you in the ass as soon as you say something mean.

>>25283191

There's no issue if you're doing that. LGPL already lets you do that.

>>25283191
Their own code based on GPL'd code. If they want to sell it without releasing the source code they should remove the GPL parts, simple as that.
If you make proprietary software, you simply don't use code licensed under GPL.

>>25283184

yes because apple would never fuck with ipv6 or any ip implimentations

http://www.gigo.com/wiki/Apple_Is_Sabotaging_IPv6

FACTUAL info, btw don't reply on one company to make a STANDARD for all.

>>25283171
My argument is that it is not congruent with the social model that they are trying to enforce. They're trying to enforce a freedom wonderland by using government restrictions and a herpes-like spiderweb of licenses.
The end result could be desirable, but it's the equivalent of trying to create world peace by just killing all the bad people.

>>25283243
Bullshit.
Re-read the thread, especially the posts arguing for the GPL and it's variants.

>>25283211~
But we are arguing about GPL.

>>25283254~
Nope. GPL is a parasitic virus.

>>25283243
>They're trying to enforce a freedom wonderland by using government restrictions and a herpes-like spiderweb of licenses.
No, they are trying to free us of proprietary software. That's all. And to do that, they release software that can be used freely by anyone but proprietary software developers.

>>25283177
That's exactly why I only use BSD or more permissive code in my projects, which are usually released libpng.
Even when I have to code proprietary (for work), whenever I make something usefull, I cache it in a library and release libpng.
I just find it disconcerting that the only "true freedom" is essentially a software police state.
Gandhi would look down upon GNU/Freedom.

>>25283219
Company called KPN is handing out the first few IPv6 ip's here (Netherlands)

>>25283203

Your argument doesn't particularly apply to TCP/IP unfortunately. It's an open protocol, not a software suite. If anyone tried to 'improve' TCP/IP they would just be kicked out of the internet as everyone else would be following the open standard.

Protocols by their very nature cannot be negatively affected by companies (unless you have a total monopoly). Software suites, applications and programs however, can be stolen and slotted into proprietary blackboxes without any repercussions fairly easily.

>>25282564
CALL ME GNU/LINUX!!!!!!!!!111

>>25283255
Neru, I know that life can be boring sometimes and posting on /g/ to rile up some neckbeards, me included, is a fun pastime.

But you need to realize that with your demands GPL'd code is not meant for you.

>>25283264
>Nope. GPL is a parasitic virus.
Oh.
Well, fuck you, scum.

The only freedom GPL constricts is the freedom of someone who wants to take GPLd code and have it vanish into a closed source black box.

The idea behind the GPL is a bit like this:
Proprietary projects have large funding so they can create pretty much anything.

Free people like hackers have no such luck (though there are many funded GPL projects out there, but let me finish) they have no access to big teams and have obviously no access to proprietary code without all that big funding.

So all they have is their free code.
And the GPL is made so hackers can have a growing library of tools they can use while the people with proprietary intent cannot use those libraries and tools to bolster their closed source projects by assimilating them and should they make any improvements to the software will never see them again.
GPL disallows this.

MIT and BSD etc does.

The GPL is insurance against theft for every free developer since you can only grow and collaborate well if the source is easily distributable over large networks and people and the GPL ensures, since anyone can download the source, that only the free people can actually use it.

>>25283274
The point of the GPL is not to be used in proprietary software. That's the whole point so if you don't care/want your code to be used in proprietary software, of course the GPL is a bad idea.

File: 1338738901447.jpg-(24 KB, 440x325, OpenWrt.jpg)

>>25283150
You were saying something about proprietary implementations
>you were saying something about best intentions, go ahead motherfucker, i dare you to say proprietary again <pulpfictionreference>

>>25283243
I notice how you start with my arguments, alot of time, even if you put info in to peoples heads, they come back to their argument without listening to the original statement.
Since that is too hard for you to grasp, lets try this.

proprietary code is similar to killing off the good people

Do you see the water half full vs empty comparison there?

Think.... How can freedom, and the ability to share kill off the bad people, than rethink with this and the statements above you posted. seriously

>>25283274
>Even when I have to code proprietary (for work), whenever I make something usefull, I cache it in a library and release libpng
And your employer's OK with that?

File: 1338738941269.jpg-(33 KB, 640x480, shot0058.jpg)

ITT:
"Oh boy, I love proprietary things and fuck the GPL for disallowing it's code to be used for that!"

But...I kind of don't want to pay the licenses or royalties required to use some substancial functionality some proprietary library provides.
So I would love to grab some free code.
STUPID GPL!!!

https://minus.com/lbpvvOvre6br3G/Consumer%20&%20Developer

First and second pages.

>>25283341
>proprietary code is similar to killing off the good people
No, proprietary code is similar to providing service without providing methodology.

>Do you see the water half full vs empty comparison there?
No, I see a strawman.
>Here, look at it this way. Your way is like killing people.
>Why do you love murder?

>>25283342
Yes. My boss is awesome. Typically, we're mostly a service-based company anyway.
He just says I have to be careful. He recommended that I code the library separately, and use it directly in the proprietary code, and then state in comments that it came from the library, that way it doesn't look like I'm pulling code from work projects and releasing them.

>>25283284
I meant the original TCP network stack, which was incorporated into every major OS, and was still in Windows' as of Windows 7.

>>25283341
Your argument only works if proprietary code somehow magically disappears all together. Until that day, GPL code does exactly as >>25282961 says.

Shit, I've kept things I made for personal use from release because I didn't think the source was up to snuff (and wasn't particularly inclined to refactor it.) If I could have just released a binary then people might have had a useful tool. In that case, the GPL actually hampers the production of things.

>>25283531
>Your argument only works if proprietary code somehow magically disappears all together.
The GPL is a tool in the anti-proprietary software activists' toolkit. So yes, the GPL considers proprietary software shouldn't benefit from GPL'd software.

>>25283506

Every implementation is different dependent on the operating system. The raw data in the packets as defined in the protocol stays the same, but the way the TCP/IP stack behaves on an operating system is different.

>>25283531
>code not up to snuff
>the GPL is the bad boy cause I would have released my not up to snuff code at least as a tool then.

And miss out on others refactoring it?
Apparently your tool is up to snuff enough if someone would have wanted to use it and unless your coding style is like super awful I don't think people would care and if they did, well there is this proverb like thing and I'm paraphrasing:

It's not your fault the world is shit but it's your fault if it stays that way.
So fuck the nigger who grabs your code, finds it useful and would bitch that your code is a mess, if he thinks the functionality that did him good just now is shit then he should just change that or shut it.

>>25283531

Alternatively, you could have released it under the GPL and if people thought it was a decent little program they may have added to it and everyone could have benefited from the improvements.

What the GPL stops, is a company or individual taking your source code and improving it a touch and then selling it on. You'd probably be pissed if you created Windows back in the 80s, and Microsoft came along and packaged it up and made millions.

>>25283531
>Until that day, GPL code does exactly as >>25282961 says.
TCP/IP was already firmly cemented before AT&T released their code, wouldn't have matter what license they chose, people had to adopt TCP/IP or die.

>>25283589
Whether or not it's logical doesn't matter (I don't like to attach poorly written work to my name).

But I'm quite certain I'm not the only person who has acted in that manner, so yes, the GPL has hampered progress in at least some scenarios there.

>>25283649
>But I'm quite certain I'm not the only person who has acted in that manner, so yes, the GPL has hampered progress in at least some scenarios there.
No, because a proprietary tool is a useless tool.
If you can't release it as under a free license it's best not released at all.

Every program released under proprietary license is hindering progress, just think of all that duplicated effort and massive potential waste preventing people from improving programs.

>>25283649
But the goal of the GPL is precisely to prevent people from using GPL code in proprietary software.
Regardless of your reason for not releasing it under the GPL.
So in that case, the GPL did its job. And I don't think much people will miss it when the reason is that the developer is so ashamed of his code he doesn't want to release it.

>>25283707
>No, because a proprietary tool is a useless tool.
You just went full retard. By that logic, desktop calculators would have best never been created.

>>25283649
No, insecurities did, not the GPL, wtf.
Don't get me wrong I understand where you are coming from, been and am there myself, but that is not the GPLs fault, it's insecurity.

File: 1338740560044.jpg-(50 KB, 458x465, immortal_tech_mat_template.jpg)

>>25283441
Not sure if troll, or idiot.

I'm glad you catch my sentence half way without understand the full context. I didn't misrepresent what he was saying. I simply turned it around to present that kind of world view in the propriety software development. People have moral objections. We are to inherent assume consumers as the neutral parties here.

SO LEMME do this again
MY post is to .>>25283243

which said: I'll greentext issues without quoting out of context

My argument is that it is not congruent with the social model that they are trying to enforce. >They're trying to enforce a freedom wonderland by using government restrictions and a herpes-like spiderweb of licenses.
The end result could be desirable, but
>it's the equivalent of trying to create world peace by just killing all the bad people


Ok, how are we using government resctrictions? Propriety code creates this monopoly code, after all they only can change their code that they contribute, and not just anyone.

Again, we aren't killing off bad people, you have the choice in the matter of your license, you have freedom to choose, once you accept something, and have to bow down to a license, you loose the freedom, because the license says that. The GPL is only in place to compete with exist license that would restrict users, if there were not pro proprietary license, there would be no need for the gpl

>also since you attacked me with saying i like murder, and assuming things
I can also tell you i resent murder, but in life, it happens, in evolution it happens. Guess what? i know i'm a human, i accept we had to kill off ape man to be here. Guess what? i'm vegetarian, but not in the traditional since, and i still accept the premise that we came from carnivorous ancestors. This is /g/ and not /ck/, come debate me on there if you wish, since your making personal attacks

>>25283736
Well, that's the premises for the GPL, it's "raison d'être".
No proprietary software should exist.

Whether you agree or not with this doesn't matter, that's what's behind the Free Software movement, which is distinct from the open-source movement.

>>25283776
Well, that's not the reason for the BSD License.

so whether you agree or disagree with it doesn't matter.

>>25283736
>By that logic, desktop calculators would have best never been created.
Why not?
Early calculators wasn't even software, it was hardware only so free software didn't even apply.

>>25283757
The only purpose of the FSF is to work towards a world without proprietary software. not "freedom wonderland".

File: 1338740817862.png-(184 KB, 500x375, 5559.png)

>that feel when the only post in this thread that is on topic and provides credible and through information for the OP goes entirely ignored
>that feel when the only threads and posts that get responses are troll, meta, and help-desk

>>25283806
>a world without proprietary software
That is the state of maximum total freedom in the context of software.

>>25283801
>Well, that's not the reason for the BSD License.
Of course not, the BSD license is an open-source license. It's about releasing the source code of your software, not enforcing the open-sourceness of the code that use it.

>>25283736

>calculators
>software

They were basic logic circuits and fundamental mathematical equations, you can't patent or copyright them AT ALL.

>>25283840
He broke the cardinal rule. Never use an image more interesting than your post

>>25283806
Correct, me views do not represent the FSF, I have little history of supporting them, however i do accept alot of their logic

I'm not an idiot, I would aruge, even with gpl, because you accept any license or 'terms' (even with the gpl) you loose rights that are inherant to your existence.

inb4 the sun expands to hit the earth, and realizing we're only a fraction of the galaxy, surrounded by a black hole, with hopes and ambitions. While people on earth attempt to control people with legal, (or back in the day slavery and poverty) welp, this is only my opinion, and the point is, i have little to no affiliation with the FSF, but i respect some of what they do.

>>25283879
Actually, the cardinal rule is "/g/ never replies to educated, credible, and well thought out posts."

>>25283895
>implying OPs post was educated, credible, and well thought out

>>25283841
But while there's proprietary software, if you're working towards a proprietary-software-free world, you don't want your code to help them thrive (like open-source software does) so you use a license that restricts the use of your code by proprietary software, aka the GPL.
If you don't give a fuck about a proprietary-software-free world and just want to release your source code, you use something else.

>>25283913
So it turns out you didn't read what I said. Though it looks like you know how to greentext so you've been here at least 3 months, whether it's been longer than that I'm unsure, but if you'd like to know the said post ALT+F for a post with HTTP in this thread.

File: 1338741442144.jpg-(778 KB, 827x1226, 1334879748086..jpg)

>BSD leaves it's projects free to be gutted by anyone.
>OSX relies heavily on stolen BSD code
>IOS gobbles up parts of BSD wherever it can
>BSD doesn't even stand for feedom anymore with the most locked down widely use operating system in existence (IOS) heavily made up from it's code.
>linux hovers reliably at 0.6-1.2% of internet users
>BSD usage almost non existant, relies on people who willfully use outdated and inefficient software, much of the usage comes from 3rd world countries.

The GNU public license is flawed beyond belief but if you think you can make BSD look any better by use of stretched analogies you're foolish

>>25283954
>ALT+F
Why do I need my File menu open?

>>25283965
>first of all it's not "dad" it's GNU/dad

I like to imagine this is what rms would say to his child in real life.

File: 1338741472163.jpg-(573 KB, 1500x2000, gnu.jpg)

GNU WINS AGAIN

>>25283998
He wouldn't have a child.

>>25283996
My mistake for expecting you try and have a civilized discussion.

/g/ is officially worse than Reddit and 9Gay.

File: 1338741607481.png-(26 KB, 282x479, manual_override.png)

>>25282564

>>25283965
Someone post the edit where the wtfpl rapes his daughter

>>25283992
>BSD usage almost non existant, relies on people who willfully use outdated and inefficient software, much of the usage comes from 3rd world countries.
You mean
>BSD used and contributed to extensively by many individual developers and large corporations, including Nvidia, AMD, Apple, IBM, etc.
It's like you don't even know the state of things.

>>25284006
You'd be surprised how often the guy actually gets laid.

>>25284031
I wasn't talking about that, just his stance on natalism.

File: 1338741738983.jpg-(56 KB, 453x294, TorvaldsLaugh.jpg)

>>25283992
critizes all license with no clear alternative

Christ, just pick on, i haven't seen any better ones, unless you make it yourself, in which case, good look thinking of every situation and actually expecting users to read and and not get mad, when they violate it.

/g/ trashtalk

>>25284042
Everybody slips up now and again, and do you really think he'd forgo his child?
I don't like the guy, but he seems like the kind who would take responsibility.

GNU: "I make sure everyone who uses my hammer also make it available to others, so they don't take advantage of my generosity. The work done 'with' the hammer, however, belongs entirely to the worker."

BSD: "I am a faggot. I use straw-man arguments to make me feel better. And I just lost a hammer."

>>25284070
Nor does he seem like the kind who would accidentally knock-up some whore.

>>25284015
Yeah, /g/ doesn't even know their keyboard shortcuts.

>>25284082
>BSD: "I am a faggot. I use straw-man arguments to make me feel better. And I just lost a hammer."
This line is hilarious, being a strawman.
Also, at no point do you ever lose your codebase when you release BSD.
Try using an actual comparison.

bsd license is bad and you should feel bad

http://www.enigmagroup.org/
Backtrack related forums
Ethical hacking forums.

>>25284113
the license doesn't define codebase.

that is the software dev

GPL respects the author more than the BSD. This is a better design...

File: 1338742388790.jpg-(120 KB, 449x712, 1333021296874..jpg)

>>25284027
>BSD used and contributed to extensively by many individual developers and large corporations, including Nvidia, AMD, Apple, IBM, etc.

You honestly think apple and IBM contribute to BSD? The only reason apple doesn't sue them is because no one uses BSD. Linux is the strongest public license that spreads freedom we've ever had.

How many people do you know that use pure BSD, actually marketed as BSD or have used BSD? I know 1 not counting people on /g/ and about 10 with people on /g/. How many people do you know that use "pure" linux, actually marketed as linux. I know about 25 people that do and about 50 people that have tried it, on /g/, well, just look at any desktop thread, half that shit's arch, cruncbang or debian.

What percentage of people do you think know android is linux based? I'd say maybe 5%

What percentage of people do you think know IOS is BSD based? Hardly anyone.

So we have a license that:
doesn't spread freedom
doesn't get any recognition when it's used
hardly sets up any rules of use at all and gets literally gutted for it
makes wonderful and easily portable code but creates software that no one has ever heard of.

Face it, BSD is as obscure as someone using pure unix or someone using plan 9.

>>25284082
GNU: "I am an authoritarian Jew. By the way, it's GNU/Hammer."

BSD: "Everyone gets hammers! You want a hammer, fuck it, take twelve."

>>25284186
>The only reason apple doesn't sue them is because no one uses BSD
Erm... why would Apple sue BSD exactly?

Why is hackforums always down?

"Stallman's only computer is a Lemote Yeeloong netbook (using the same company's Loongson processor) which he chose because it can run with 100% free software even at the BIOS level, stating "freedom is my priority. I've campaigned for freedom since 1983, and I am not going to surrender that freedom for the sake of a more convenient computer."

I hate this motherfucker and his shit, so I'm really trolled when I find that he's in fact, not dead. "Fuck conveniences fuck productivity fuck everything that's not my freedom" fucking communist, autistic fat lard, unable to function in today's society.

And yes, in case you're wondering, I'm le mad.

>>25284321~
I find him funny but I's frustrated by GPL software and how it infects everything it touches.

>>25284321
>implying communists give a fuck about freedom

>>25284363
>it infects everything it touches
It doesn't. If a developer chooses to use GPL code, he does that of his own free will and unless he's retarded he knows that his code will have to be released under a compatible license.

>>25284186
Apple does actively contribute to BSD-like codebases, such as clang, Intel video drivers, and Mesa 3D.
IBM contributed extensively.
I don't think you know what you're talking about with using "pure" BSD, as we're discussing the BSD license, not OS.
You definitely don't know what you're talking about with "using pure Linux".

>Face it, BSD is as obscure as someone using pure unix or someone using plan 9.
You have no idea what you're talking about, at all.

>>25284391
The amount of freedom to choose is inversely proportional to the propagation of the GPL. As it becomes more prominent, the developer has less of a "choice."

>>25284441
That's the point. The goal is to free us of proprietary software. Not letting everyone do as he like with our code.

>>25284391
>Herpes infects everything it touches
>It doesn't. If a person chooses to touch a herpes-infected individual, he does that of...
It's still infectious, you dipshit, that's not changed by electiveness.

>>25284486
lol @ this thread
shitty analogies everywhere

>>25284478~
>Not letting everyone do as he like with our code.
But they are not doing anything with your code. It is still available. The only thing they are effectively doing anything with is any changes they made themselves.

>>25284478
>Not letting everyone do as he likes in general

Fixed that for you. If the propagation gets to the point where people are forced to use it, then it becomes less about "your code" and more about they have no fucking choice, which is ridiculous.

>>25284525
>he only thing they are effectively doing anything with is any changes they made themselves.
Yes. They take my work and make something new using it. I'm fine with it as long as they're releasing it as free software.
If they're not OK with this, then they shouldn't base their work on my code.

File: 1338743707252.png-(80 KB, 470x617, 1337366953001.png)

I'm just asking, because I have no idea:

If I was an indie game developer who released his game under the BSD licence, would it be possible that someone else takes it, adds some new things to it and then releases it as a proprietary product, which allows him to make profit without ever mentioning my name (of course I wouldn't be entitled to any form of benefit - or would I?)?

The only reason GPL code is actually safe from being used in propitiatory projects is because of how shitty it is.

You stand exactly zero chance of figuring out if there is GPL code or not in a closed source project.

>>25284611
He would need to include a copy of the license somewhere in his final product (like the about page or something).