BSD License Linux?

I'm a BSD fan philosophically. Its license doesnt get in my way and it isnt a legal time bomb. Is there a Linux distro that either heavily scales back all the GNU-GPL Autism or removes it entirely?

Other urls found in this thread:

gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Piracy
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

linux kernel is licensed under GPL, so basically, you can't.

>Its license doesnt get in my way and it isnt a legal time bomb.
Do a little research before you bait user.

And no.
Linux kernel is GPLv2 and any work using it's code is derivative work and therefore has to be GPL.

Don't they have a BSD Ubuntu OS now anyway?

>communist license that hates you making money off your software
>not a legal time bomb

Like I said, do a little research because clearly you have no idea at all what you're talking about.
On top of that you're obviously confused what a "legal time bomb" concering software licensing is or might be.

Paid software doesn't really exist anymore. You pay for support, not the software itself.
To me, this makes complete sense, due to today's easily accessible piracy.

>piracy
Copyright infringement is not piracy. Only propagandists and their victims conflate the two.
gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Piracy

Yes goy, everything should be free. Capitalism is exploitive, you should embrace communism.

The GPL does allow you to make money off your software, read the license before posting, faggot.
Free Software =! Gratis Software

Honestly I don't like proprietary software, not saying it's evil, but it isnt my choice for my work. Others should be able to choose too. That being said I despise the communist free software red tape because of how forced and unavoidable it is. Hasn't ANYONE developed a distro that isolates the GPL bullshit from the truly open and free portions?

>Yes goy, everything should be free
The parent post did not imply that, at all.

are you just going to regurgitate memes you've heard on Sup Forums for the next few hours until you get bored, call it "good trolle" and decide "yes i've accomplished something today"?

That's what people are saying when they support digital piracy. Communists and anarchists are the biggest supporter of digital piracy.

>Hasn't ANYONE developed a distro that isolates the GPL bullshit from the truly open and free portions?
Did you actually read the GPL?

>communist
>red tape
>forced
>unavoidable
>truly open and free
All those buzzwords look like it's an attempt to make you look like you're familiarized with the topic. But you aren't.

Alpine and Void keep GNU components to a minimum, but as has been said, the kernel itself is GPLv2.

A) isolate it how?
B) BSD vs GPL is a fairly complex debate, not something where you can define one as "truly free" and the other therefore not.

Not really, unless you want to run Android on your desktop or something. There are a few niche distributions (sabotage, alpine) that ditch glibc and the GNU coreutils, and you can build your own distro with LLVM/Clang, musl and one of the MIT-licensed coreutils rewrites if you care. You could probably also beat Gentoo into compliance.

Honestly, though, why the fuck would you care about the GPL autism?

GPL is not truly free. It enslaves you and forces you to release the source code. BSD gives you true freedom and gives you choice.

...

Like the poster above mentioned, keeping the GNU stuff to a functional minimum. GPL is a constitutional democracy, BSD is anarchy. Both free and okay, but the software evangelism of The FSF and GPL is too much for a normal code junkie to have to keep up with

And really, anyone that opposed to any hint of GPL ought to dispense with the Linux kernel entirely and just use one of the BSDs.

>Implying BSD isnt freer than Marx/Linux

>GPL is not truly free. It enslaves you and forces you to release the source code. BSD gives you true freedom and gives you choice.
So all you care about is having the possibility to restrict freedom of others.

This is hardly freedom user.

>Like the poster above mentioned, keeping the GNU stuff to a functional minimum.
So the word you're really looking for is "minimise", not "isolate".
>the software evangelism of The FSF and GPL is too much for a normal code junkie to have to keep up with
But the average code junkie really doesn't need to anyway. As long as they're aware of what their obligations are regarding the license of any existing software they modify and redistribute, they can just go about their business.

>ITT
>people not understanding the difference between freedom and rights

GPL absolutely restricts freedom, but total freedom is not universally good. That's why rights were invented. For example - you don't have the freedom not to be killed, you have the right not to be killed, which in turn restricts freedom of others. It's a good compromise in the real world, and total freedom is anarchy.
Of course when it comes to software you harm no one by adopting total freedom (BSD) for your software. It's a matter of preference.

Being free implies a right to be free.
A right to be free implies that others have a duty not to infringe upon that right.
The GPL does this. BSD does not, and never claims to be more free.

The point to BSD's license is to make the code useful to the maximum number of people possible, even if that means it is sometimes misused. It's a fine license, but don't try to ascribe moral arguments to what was motivated purely by pragmatism.

>it isnt a legal time bomb

GPL
>code licensed as GPL always stays GPL
>all derivative works have to be GPL due to "viral/cancerous" licensing of it
>freedom guaranteed

BSD
>it's free for as long as it benefits us

And yet you somehow deduced that GPL is the timebomb.

> the software evangelism of The FSF and GPL is too much for a normal code junkie to have to keep up with
Whatever you understand by this, it's irrelevant to *using* the GPL.

The GPL isn't too much to keep up with. It's one license and even if you want to grab patches or switch to a derivative of the thing you're using, it'll be licensed essentially the same way.

BSD is the thing that creates the actually complex situation where you have to re-check the licenses of every damn part of a derivative project you'd like to fork a patch from or adapt as a whole as your "way forward".

> GPL absolutely restricts freedom
GPL restricts restrictions existing in the usual set of copyright law.

It does not restrict freedom. The otherwise applying default of copyright law is *not* freedom.

The choice of GPL or BSD by the authors has zero impact on you as the end user, unless you want to contribute to the software.
Why don't you just respect the decision made by the authors. They most certainly had their reasons for choosing that particular licence.

Liberally licensed software (BSD, MIT, zlib) is often free software but is not necessarily free software. You have to check every instance of the program to ensure that the software is free software or otherwise. With the GPL, it's always simple, the GPL software is always free software.