Why do people say bsd has a cuck license? how is it any worse than gee pee ell

why do people say bsd has a cuck license? how is it any worse than gee pee ell

Other urls found in this thread:

gnu.org/licenses/bsd.en.html
freebsdfoundation.org/donors/
linuxfoundation.org/members/corporate
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

OSX

Because you can take anything you want and contribute nothing. Ever used a BSD system otherthan macOS, that's not a giant makefile wasteland?

it's all bullshit, people making a big deal about the license because they can't be bothered to carry a technical discussion and to hate on a system just because they don't know it and they feel it somehow threatens their precious OS or because they can't possibly fathom people having different uses for their computers, I don't know. The point is that it's bullshit discussion, both licenses have their uses and at the end both of them are used in open source projects.

I personally dislike the GPL license because it holds copyright on contributor's code, thus not really free.
GPL users (also called freetards) dislike the BSD license because it doesn't keep companies (eg Apple) from using the available source code as a basis for their proprietary systems which they sell and for which they don't provide source.

>I personally dislike the GPL license because it holds copyright on contributor's code
I don't know if it's true, but BSD do this for sure or you don't know what is copyright. Also in the SaaS, IaaS era GPL alone don't stop anyone to use the code and keep it close. This is why AGPL created though. Also don't forget what kernel used on the most smartphone. GPL is industry friendly, just they have to learn it to use.

Well, sure, I think I was wrong in my wording. BSD does hold copyright in their codebase, which is written by contributors.
But it doesn't hold a monopoly on their codebase.
Both licenses are okay, I agree, and proprietary software should be avoided. But the GPL is just more restrictive and it holds liabilities on anyone wishing to use their code for whatever purposes.
In general I don't give a flying fuck, the software is there for me to use and the source is out there for everyone to see.

>BSD:
You write your software, companies able to legally steal your code and give you nothing back, might as well close it off and shove it up your butt. BSD takes the cuckoldry even further by enabling companies to sell your own code to yourself.
Protects code stealers.
Key word: Freebie
Examples and use cases : Things you never cared about. Freebie shit, throwaway codes. Free newspapers.

>GPL:
You make the source open but if anyone uses it he or the company has to give back what they have done to your code. They can't close it off and the source will have to be open. Otherwise enjoy your lawsuit. Protects code makers.
Keyword: Borrow
Examples or usecases: Library books

Verdict: The idea of the sources being open aims to share and improve each others codes. BSD shares codes but it never forces bi-lateral improvement. Companies will steal your code, improve it and give you nothing back, unlike GPL


This post will make BSD cucks very very mad. But every word of this post are hard truths.

>Real life examples
PS4 took BSD codes, improved it and look where it is now. Sony only gave a fraction back as a gesture of politeness, the license doesn't make them do it

Google took LInux, improved it and it's now one of the biggest contributor to the Linux foundation. It's a white gold member and millions of lines of code in Linux comes from Google Engineers. Chromebook uses Linux and Fuchsia is a clone of Linux

>steal
Copy.

Sure. I'm not a thief or a plagiariser, I copy

Unrelated, but funny: gnu.org/licenses/bsd.en.html

I'm lead developer at my company and when I look for libraries to incorporate in our product to save dev effort I immediately skip anything with GPL licence. It's too fucking restrictive.
In comparison we end up going with alternatives with BSD and MIT licences and eventually contribute back to the project to expand its compatibles we consider useful to other users.
At the moment we are pulling 5 dependencies and so far made 9 contributions to 2 projects.

>how is it any worse than gee pee ell

It isn't.

GPL is anti-freedom and restrictive.

This.

Anything with GPL is an instant pass for us.

Go back to Sup Forums, troll.

Why not just say that you disagree with me?

Is that some sort of defense mechanism: call them a troll in an attempt to automatically invalidate anything you disagree with?

How about you tell me why you think the GPL is acceptable?

>libraries
>GPL

Posing hard.

>It's too fucking restrictive.
It's protecting freedom, friendo. These "restrictions" protect the code from people who want to make the stuff proprietary. So call it protection instead of restriction.

>there are no libraries licensed with GPL

...what?

>We're not restricting you from buying firearms, we're PROTECTING you!

You can call the restrictions protective in nature, but they are very literally restrictions. The license restricts what you can do.

>Why not just say that you disagree with me?
Because you spread disinformation and you know it, gtfo.

LGPL? Got it?

Friendly reminder that public domain and BSD are the only true freedom.

Those are my opinions.

You're welcome to call it "disinformation", but I'm not passing it along as an objective fact.

I feel that the GPL is restrictive, and it literally is restrictive because it restricts what someone can do with your software.

Freedom is allowing your code to be used however the user sees fit, as long as they don't blame you for anything.

Thus, the MIT license is the best license for me, both from a use-case standpoint, as also a philosophical one.

If you tolerate intolerant people, is it an act of tolerance or intolerance? Think about it for a while.

Your point being? This doesn't change the fact that there are libraries with GPL licence.

...

Intolerant to who's perspective? Yours? Mine? Society?

If you restrict the freedoms of those you find intolerable, you are being intolerant, because you are not necessarily the voice of society.

If you believe in freedom, make it free. Don't make it free with caveats and restrictions.

That's ridiculous... LGPL is weak copyleft, not """viral""". This is considered because the butthurt BSD lovers have some fetish towards closed source.

>open source lovers have a fetish for closed source
A fetish for freedom, faggot.

The GPL doesn't limit you unless you distribute a work derived from it. The only restriction is you may not impose more restrictions than the GPL.

The only "freedom" you have restricted is the freedom to deny others the freedom you enjoy. The GPL simply seeks to ensure no one is ever able to create a position of privilege over others with respect to the work. In an ideal world it wouldn't be needed, but since we have copyright it is a neat hack to turn the legal framework on its head.

>the only restriction is that you can't use it freely

Sounds pretty anti-freedom to me.

freebsdfoundation.org/donors/

linuxfoundation.org/members/corporate

Freedom to put those chains up and work for free.

It doesn't its just GNUmales projecting.

It seems you are fudamentally misunderstanding what freedom means. Freedom doesn't mean that you can whatever you want, that's anarchy. Freedom means not being a slave. Slavery is illegal today, to protect peoples freedom. In the same way it's a good idea to protect source code from turning it into proprietary software, which enslaves and divides the users.

You can /use/ it freely. The GPL imposes no restrictions on use (and in fact forbids imposing limits on use).

The question does come to a deeper philosophical one. Is a society more or less free if there is a universal agreement to not limit others further than the agreement to not limit them?

The major issue is who should have more freedom. The users or the developers and BSD/GPL shitstorm always breaks out with namecalling and muh more freedoms when both side is right and false in the same time.

This. I never use anything with the GPL. Fuck that. In kind, I also use BSD or MIT or everything I release.

The GPL aims to basically eliminate the distinction, there is no exclusive class of developers and every user is free to become a developer under the GPL.

The again /entire/ point of the GPL is to basically ensure that everyone, always will have equal standing with respect to the work and to ensure no one can try to seize a position over others.

>License
I dont give a single shit about license. I just want high quality high performance unix based system. Thats why I use linux.

· GPL makes sure that software will stay free.
· BSD doesn't; it allows to make software proprietary.

Result: At the end of the day, if you choose the GPL, there will be more free software allover the world than if you choose the BSD license.

GPL > BSD

The future you deserve.

GNU/Linux*