Let's talk about how GPL is the worst license in the world and screws the developers right in the ass

Let's talk about how GPL is the worst license in the world and screws the developers right in the ass.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU
stallman.org/notes/2015-jul-oct.html#06_July_2015_(Multiple_marriage)
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Let's talk about how GPL is the best license in the world and screws bsdfags right in the ass where they like it

Do you like being cucked or something?
Fucking BSDfags are baffling.

Seconded.
GPL is for cunts.
Why do they think other people's work belongs to them?

the only thing the GPL prohibits is your denying other users and programmers the same freedoms you enjoy. Why do you want to do that?

>WE'LL GIVE YOU FREEDOM
>BY TAKING AWAY YOUR FREEDOM

If you release software under the GPL, then complain about it later, you're a fucking moron. If you don't like the license terms, don't use the license. And on the other end: no one is forcing you to use GPL code in your project. If you don't like being forced to share your code, then don't fucking use GPL code in your project, it's pretty simple.

GPL haters think they're entitled to use anyone's code with no strings attached and that they shouldn't need to abide by the license terms.

it's more like saying that to ensure everyone has freedom of speech, nobody has the right to censor others. Having any right necessarily implies that others lack the right to deny you that right.

youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU

I use the GPL for personal stuff because it protects everyone that comes into contact with my work from being screwed in the arse.
If you disagree, you don't have to use the GPL or GPL licenced code if you don't want. It's that fucking simple.

Use your freedom of choice.

Enforced freedom is still freedom.

A slave owner might be free, but the slaves aren't. GPL is about protecting the user from the developer, not the other way around.

>it's more like saying that to ensure everyone has freedom of speech, nobody has the right to disagree with others
Fixed that for you

Anyone notice how linux is so much fucking better than bsd?
I've tried both, and while linux is awesome, bsd is utter garbage.
It must be that copyleft idea.
RMS is so incredibly based.

We would still be in the computing dark ages without the GPL. Most of the modern world wouldn't be possible.

>Anyone
Everyone*

Well what if *I* The developer, want to protect myself from the users? What recourse is there for me?

GPL is basically mob rule, its an insidious license that promotes itself through viral copying, all code incorporating any GPL code must be GPL'd, and actually LIMITS distribution of work if you ask me.

Don't use GPL if you don't like it retard

>This open source software have some interesting stuff in it. I might use some in my project and give give the author credits.
Not possible mate, see, this code was under GPL license so you have to put ALL your code under the GPL license too. For your freedom. (Totally not for RMS ego).

Also, if your project happen to get more famous than GPL itself, we'll put "GNU /" in front of it and force meme it. If we repeat it often enough, maybe we'll confuse enough people so that the lie becomes reality.

In the meanwhile, we'll wait in the shadow for you to make a mistake and answer by the appropriate pasta.

Don't forget that we're the good guys, and proprietary is evil. Using the wrong term is evil. Open source is evil if you don't do it according to our rules. Should you disagree with us, you're evil and you don't respect freedom.

Truth. Fuck GPL

Still clueless mo matter how often things are explained.

>GPL goon damage control squad

Are you one of these incurable butthurt FSS fanboy?

FSS extremism is the main reason of the poor reputation of open-souce.

I was memed myself when I was joining the freetard club in my uni back when I was a freshman and doing my first steps in the Linux world via Ubuntu.

I'm interested in open-source...
> Yoy mean FLOSS? Free libre open source software [reciting his pasta]
So, how many years ago did you guys started using Linux?
> [fake muffed laugter] It's GNU / Linux ...

During lecture, then the teacher mentions LAMP servers
> I'm sorry to interrupt your don't you mean GLAMP servers?


No body wants to stick close the FSS though they try to meme themselve the closest they can to famous projects. The FSS propaganda is trying to meme the "gnu/linux" instead of "linux", making it sound like the're the one in charge while their own GNU/Hurd failed harder than the apple watch.

Even now, I am refusing to participate in FSS promotion and choose other licenses such as MIT or BSD for my hobby projects.

>Well what if *I* The developer, want to protect myself from the users?
Then you will be among the first against the wall.

Nice.
Enjoy you're hobby projects while there still yours.
Cuck.

No, his example was correct.

>Do you think Tivoization benefits me as a user somehow?
>No

Torvalds:
BTFO
T
F
O

Yeah, they're mine, and the credit doesn't go to people pretending to fight for freedom to feed their ego. And if someone wants to fork, I'm not forcing to use the license I used. And if he wants to just seal my code and put it into closed source firmware, "Pls dont gnu/steal this code and you HAVE TO USE THE GPL!!" won't stop him to do so.

I bet your wife's boyfriend loves you.

So you should have the right to use someone else's code, yet others shouldn't be allowed to use yours? Talk about entitled, faggot.

stallman.org/notes/2015-jul-oct.html#06_July_2015_(Multiple_marriage)
>I cannot find the one where he says that chinese man should share their woman.
Your leader is promoting cuckholdness you bitch.

Did you even read?
My point is that literally everyone can use my code without he forcing GPL clauses on them.

GPL is a cuck license.

I wonder how far more advanced we would be if RMS had never created his ego stroking license.
I mean that's what it is.
It exists solely so he can steal credit for things by labeling it GNU

Linux would have fizzled like BSD if it had been licensed permissively.

Either:

1. Linux wouldn't be what it is. Microsoft would still hold the monopoly in every market. The free internet would never have exploded. Supercomputers and academic research would not exist or suffer. We wouldn't be sending rovers to mars.

-or- (most likely)

2. Linus Torvalds would be using a different copyleft license instead. Possibly a homegrown one (like the early licenses he released linux under before discovering the GPLv2), and perhaps one with legal loopholes that companies could be using to bring us back into world #1.

or someone else would have published a good-enough kernel under a copyleft license?

Also a possibility.

>Well what if *I* The developer, want to protect myself from the users? What recourse is there for me?
Keep it proprietary.

>I might use some in my project and give give the author credits
Did the author say you can do that? If not, that's copyright infringement.

Torvalds is my hero.

Using a permissive license is like being a hetero man in an open relationship.

I consider GPL more of an ideological license than a free license.

He still supports the GPL in this video...

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you’re referring to as GPL, is in fact, GNU/GPL, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, GNU plus GPL. GPL is not an licensing scheme unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning copyleft agreement made useful by the GNU Organisation, our lawyers, and the Free Software Foundation comprising a full legal apparatus
Many developers use a modified version of the GNU license every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called “GPL”, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU license, developed by the GNU Project. There really is a GPL, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the license they use.

>But what about my freedom to own slaves!

Not version 3.

>Not possible mate, see, this code was under GPL license so you have to put ALL your code under the GPL license too
Don't you see that's the point? That's the purpose of the license. This isn't a flaw.

>we'll put "GNU /" in front of it and force meme it.
You must be referring to the FSF. That's no reflection or comment on the GPL. It has nothing to do with popularity. It's called GNU/Linux because the GNU part constitutes a major part of the operating system.

>Should you disagree with us, you're evil and you don't respect freedom.
If you don't release your code as free software, you're not respecting freedom. You're free to disagree with this principle, or just keep your code proprietary. That's fine.

Again, using the GPL does not mean that you approve of the FSF's activities.

>They're mine
You must understand, this here is itself the ego.

There is more to protecting freedom that one's own sense of self. It's the sense of self placed in the community of computer users, the feeling of duty to ensure that they have and will always have free access to the code. It's the least egoist action one could take.

>It's called GNU/Linux because the GNU part constitutes a major part of the operating system.
Correction:

Some people call it GNU/Linux because they believe the GNU part to be a major part of the operating system.

Keyword here is "believe".
Like how scientologists believe we flew to earth on spaceworthy airplanes

That's now how you write BSD.

GPL isn't a BSD license, user.

Exactly. BSD is the cuck license.

I don't understand. Are you saying the GPL makes the users have power over the developer? That doesn't make any sense. What are the users doing that you need protection from?

Wrong. He said that it's a perfectly fine license and you should pick it if it works for you.

It's more that he wishes GPLv3 were a separate license instead of taking the place of v2.

>He said that it's a perfectly fine license
After words like "I hate the GPL version 3".

Yeah, and why did he say that afterwards? Because he doesn't stand by the words "I hate GPL version 3" alone.

If I say "I hate apples. They taste bad." and then later I say "But apples are a fine food and you can eat them if you like." Does that mean I'm against apples?

It's a shitty analogy, but my main point is that the video is overall pro-GPL.

Do you think they give a shit? A company I interned in didnt give two shit about copy pasting some functions they took from random github accounts.

>It's called GNU/Linux because the GNU part constitutes a major part of the operating system.
>that's what FSF believes.
And even so, there's nothing in the GPL license that forbids forking and renaming as long as the license is kept, which was the case.

>GPL does not mean that you approve of the FSF's activities.
You're technically right in this, but it does mean I agree with their view and support their ideology which I don't.
It's also my ego speaking here but I want to stay as far away from the FSF and use alternatives as much as possible.

>I want to have the freedom to be able to remove the freedoms of modifying and distributing the code!
>Who cares that the user can't modify my code? That not the point of free software :^)

the second part was meant as a reply to

I shit up my quoting but you understand

what a paradox it is, but it is the most good statement to express how GPL works.

Scenario a:
You are hired by a company to make some software.
They don't want it to be free software as they would own it when you are done.
You cannot take a GPL software for this.
But since you are paid to do the thing, either convince them that you need it to be GPL or spend extra time on the project to implement something similar yourself. (or use something else)

Scenario b:
You want to merge two projects and one of them is GPL, then you slap yourself for not making smaller applications.

I like the idea of copyleft.
Copyright laws are sadly not going away.
So using them to fight the other way is really nice.
It is like using cancer to fight off a giant parasite.
But I can see why GPL is not practical for libraries as you might not want to convert all code in your project to GPL.
I prefer MPL for libraries

No it isn't. It's fallacious. You don't get the freedom to encroach on the freedom of others. This is about freedom for everyone, not the freedom for greedy developers to milk the commons for their benefit.

You are right. What be taken away is the greedy one, freedom to own slaves. three cheers for our lord RMS!

If you create something and license it under GPL, and assuming all the code is yours, can you then arbitrarily decide to remove the license and put another one in place? Since you wrote it, you should be free to do this? Or am I mistaken?