Most free/open software is not free. You are bound by licencing to give your hard work to anyone who asks for it, forcing you to share it with everyone.
We should rename Free/Open Source software "Ransomsource" software. You are being held under threat of litigation to release every aspect of your software.
If you share something in real life, you can't just go "lol give me credit" or "I'm sharing this with you, but you must share it with everyone else or I'm suing you".
Free software is not free unless you can use the software and it's code in any way without giving credit to anyone and you should have the ability to make it proprietary or change it at will without sharing it with everyone.
Free software is anti-business and founded on communism/socialism. Boycott it. Support developers and support companies who make great, reliable software. You can't rely on some fat neckbeard to produce anything of worth.
So many companies have been litigated for taking "free" software and making it great, without giving credit. It's not a companies fault that a freetard cant make good software, and needs proper developers to do the job for them.
How about you take a second and read FSF philosophy?
Julian Long
I have already read your glorious leaders communist manifesto.
Luke Reyes
This is why permissive licenses are the only free licenses. GPL is pinko commie shit.
Ian Reyes
>You are bound by licencing to give your hard work to anyone who asks for it, forcing you to share it with everyone. Free software != copy left
Only the GPL is copyleft.
Luke Harris
No you haven't and also your argument is completely retarded. Nobody's forcing you to make FS, if you do not want other people seeing your code then make your program proprietary. And FS need licences because of the following scenario: >Person A makes completely free software as you described >Person B copyrights that software, because he can >Person A cannot use the software without paying paying person B anymore Get checked for autism
William Evans
You do realize that you choose the license you put your software under yourself, right?
Jacob Mitchell
>Get checked for autism You're the one replying to obvious bait, you sperglord.
Sage, report and hide.
Landon Flores
Announcing sage and reports is bannable offense newfriend
Grayson Watson
>implying I didn't sage
Sebastian Walker
I told him what to do, I didn't announce shit. Get bent degenerate scum.
Brody Allen
Is this supposed to be bait?
Oliver Walker
...
Samuel Gonzalez
If you need to ask....
Gavin Turner
This.
/thread
Mason Hernandez
Agreed.
Aaron Gray
I actually unmemeingly agree. That's why WTPL is the best licence: you can do literally whatever the fuck you want, you can even make free software proprietary and sell it for $$$.
Josiah Brown
>LE GOMMUNISOM XDDDDDD Fuck off back to your degenerate board dumbshit burgermunching americuckold youtube.com/watch?v=yBkbj_S3etY
Thomas Lopez
You are retarded.
Anthony Gonzalez
>you can do literally whatever the fuck you want, You can't though.
Charles Cox
Shitty bait made to mock up the BSD folks by bringing on the old license fight detected.
Juan Baker
You have to rename your project and that's it.
Xavier Russell
That's fucking retarded though.
Josiah Diaz
>licensecucks
why not just transfer data anonymously, making you immune to being sued, and disregard all licenses?
Dylan Rivera
nice eng-101 paragraph
Justin Hernandez
Stallmanism is the new form of communism I'm a stallmanist my self.
Gavin Rivera
Don't have the time for the res, I'm at my job.
Posted from my GNU/Linux work laptop
Ryder Robinson
rest*
Colton Wilson
If I take some FOSS software and make my own changes to make something else, why should I have to open source my own work when the original source code minus my work is available from the original project?
