BSD

Why did it fail?

Other urls found in this thread:

gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
redhat.com/en
suse.com/products/server/
oreilly.com/openbook/opensources/book/kirkmck.html
weev.livejournal.com/409835.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Cuck license.

How?

If we apply GPL to real life, you would have to let everyone into your house and your wife and daughter(s) would have to spread their legs for anyone.

it really didn't.
it's more popular than it was before.
plebs just switched from proprietaryunix/windows to linux, mostly by GNU shilling

Because cuck license. Apple raped them.

I'm using FreeBSD now more than ever, fail it did not.

Richard Stallman persuaded the bsd guys open source BSD, but unfortunately they weren't smart enough to copyleft it. Oh well, not everyone's a genius like RMS.

>If we apply GPL to real life
But we don't. GPL is a software license.
I love how BSDfags always try to come up with some weird, retarded, off-topic analogy to prove their point, whereas GPL has always had the same purpose and point. We don't want happy botnet merchants to fork Free Software into their corrupted shit.

...

Wut? GPL literally encourages you to share what you take. It's a Jewish scheme, whereas BSD lets you do whatever you want which is true freedom.

also, if you're gonna go cuck license, you might as well do it right

See:

You still haven't explained how GPL is more free.

>must share what you take
Not true freedom.

That analogy only makes sense from the perspective of a proprietary cuck. In this case, the word cuck works in two senses.

There are black people who would disagree that slavery support is true freedom.

It's a pretty simple concept. Sad you don't get it.

B-but the GPL prevents me from having the freedom to let proprietary vendors cuck me out of my own software! Not true freedom! Muh anarchy! Muh GPL virus!!!

Yes but the license also states that if my wife or daughter has a kid I'm allowed to fuck the kid so it evens out

There are alot of your entitled 'merican blacks that don't know wtf they're talking about.

GPL preserves freedom, BSD doesn't.

It didn't fail.
Ignore the GNU/Tards being mad about the licence.

>cuck license
What's the alternative?
BSD is truly free while GPL is literary communism.

You still haven't actually looked at the image, and are now repeating yourself.

GPL says
"Your fork must not take away my freedom to run the program as I wish, for any purpose"
"Your fork must not take away my freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does my computing as I wish"
"Your fork must not take away my freedom to redistribute copies so I can help my neighbor
"Your fork must not take away my freedom to distribute copies of my modified versions to others, giving the whole community a chance to benefit from my changes"

Let me tell you what the GPL is about.

Imagine you have a fuck ton of money and some fat kike with unshaved beard walks up to you and say "hurr durr give the money to people around you" and you do it. Suddenly, the fat kike with unshaved beard walks up to those you gave the money and he tells them to do the exact same thing. And the cycle repeats itself.

This is not true freedom, this is kikery.

>buy a house from a guy called BSD
>don't have to tell everyone what i'm doing in my house

>buy a house from GPL
>have to inform the entire world about what i'm doing

hmm

...

>literary communism
I think you meant literally.

Also, you're wrong
gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
redhat.com/en
suse.com/products/server/

Once again, off-topic non-analogies.
We're talking about software.
Stay on topic. This is something you should have learned how to do in middle school.

>GPL supporters are incestuous pedophiles
really activates the almonds

he fucking didn't though

Learn2history

source me that claim

and no, stallman is not unbiased

oreilly.com/openbook/opensources/book/kirkmck.html
also here's some history by marshall kirk mckusick, who worked on BSD at Berkeley and still works on FreeBSD to this day. searching for stallman on the page produces absolutely zero results.

This.

If BSD was under GPL, Applel and Sony would be forced to contribute more code. Because it isn't BSD is very irrelevant and the only BSD software people use is modified proprietary code.

>GPL fanatics don't like free choice

So if you buy a house from GPL, you have to tell everyone what's going on inside it.

But if you buy a house or get one for free from BSD, it's yours and that's it.

Hmm, which license is the best.

You're retarded. Read and kys.

>GPL
>good
your kikery is not allowed on Sup Forums

>kys
i knew GPL fanatics were underage

Weev likes stallman

>weev
>not a self-hating kike
just look at him dude

>communist open source trash
>why did it fail

If you want collaborators; GPL
If you want brutal anal rape: BSD

weev is white

hi weev

you're literally a neo-nazi because your parents adopted nignogs and you're jealous of them

No one on earth gives a shit about Weev

No you fucking idiot, you must share what you distribute.

I can take any gpl licensed software and modify it. As long as I keep it for myself I don't need to share shit.
As soon as I distribute it to others, they have a right to know my modifications.

If I buy a car, modify it into a large go-kart and then decide to sell it to you, do you want to know that it's a fucking go-kart before you buy it?

>i'm gonna fight for your freedums
>runs away to some shithole slav country
what a courageous jewish manlet he is

Oh Sony and Apple use BSD?
How nice. Show us the code.
What's that? You can't?
Doesn't sound very fucking free, does it?

>what is cups
sony also gave back some kernel stuff

Shoo shoo manipulative jews

Protip: don't claim you are UNIX when AT&T is around

cups is apache license

As someone who is just getting into "tech" and coding, is there a licence that effectively:
> Ok here is this code I wrote
> You can look at the source and use/moidfy it yourself for educational, research, or personal reasons. As long as you reference this license and my name
> You cannot use it for commercial reasons, even to create a "free" product without my permission (and licensing fee)

Something like that makes the most sense to me. Why should I spend hundreds of hours writing a useful program only to not be able to monetize it ?
This is what I don't get about the "open source community", most major projects these days are funded by someone with an agenda. People actually working for the community get not much back, which is fine, and maybe the point, but you don't get the lights like that. I firmly believe people writing useful and good programs should be able to monetize if they so choose. GPL doesn't allow this so I dont think I'd be using it

it's easy to believe lies when they are big enough

The Apple Public Source License is copyleft so it gave nothing back but they did open source their shit, and LLVM/Clang doesn't have BSD origins.

Because it used proprietary AT&T code, got in legal trouble, got sued and Linux development started.

sounds very free

The best tech girl uses.

The old lawsuit excuse.
Like GNU/Linux has never had legal hassles.
M$ makes more money patent trolling Android vendors than they do from windows phones.

Kekd out loud reading your post, what the fuck of an analogy is that?
1. It doesn’t even make sense
2. There is probably something wrong with you if this is the first analogy you can come up with

...

It sucks.

which is permissive

Darwin's open source.

that's not even what this is saying though

he's talking about the original software itself. if someone forks it and violates those freedoms, it's not the problem of the developer of the original. literally all software shipped with openbsd respects these freedoms

>susan gates

jej

Man, the things weev wrote about him almost makes me want to wipe a tear of joy. weev.livejournal.com/409835.html

>I have written bash one-liners to spam millions of people with subversive messages and shift the market cap of publicly traded companies by the billions in intraday trading.
were you trained in gorilla warfare too, weev?

>gnu/dad
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

No one gives a shit about Weev

It's almost as if you've managed to find a solution to everyone's bitching.

Not using licenses that you don't like.

>BSD retard smoking cig the wrong way
Legit comparison

less momentum than linux (because of the lawsuits)

>not accounting for the MIT license

and where does freedom 3 force you to share your modified software?
go ahead and read it real quick:

You clearly do

soyboys can't handle big swinging dick os

linux was there first
linux himself said that if 386BSD had existed when he was coding the linux kernel, linux would have never existed.
but bsd was in a bad place at the time because of claims on the name 'UNIX'

linus, said, not linux

Which BSD is the most Unix-like?

How exactly did it fail? FreeBSD is used on the most robust infrastructures out there like Netflix or WhatsApp. There's a reason they get out of their way and use it instead of simply going with Linux which is much more "supported" and "mainstream". And let's not talk about all the consoles, Apple products, and all kinds of embedded systems out there.

FreeBSD has its usages, denying it just because it isn't exactly the best most practical platform to be running on your PC is just retarded.

What makes you think it failed?

Bad analogy
With a BSD/MIT license, you let anyone use your daughters.
With a GPL license, you let them use your daughters, but only if you can use the offspring of them with your daughter.

Apple contributes back to FreeBSD so they don't need to reimplement their shit over and over again. There are several things in FreeBSD that were originally intended to only land on OSX. The code goes both ways.

Also, Sony helped them implementing AVX.

>you have to tell everyone what's going on inside it.

Bad analogy. You have to share the design plans, not your own specific configuration you stupid fuck

Hire a lawyer and write any license you like.

i think it would've existed, but it would've existed as a hobbyist project. linus wanted to teach himself how the 386 worked, after all.

That's just the cherry

>Have GPL marriage
>Wife has sex threesome with neighbor and his wife
>Get to fuck neighbors wife because he now has GPL marriage.
>All fetish revisions are returned to the original marriage

>Have BSD marriage
>Neighbor fucks your wife.

>implying CC-BY-SA isn't basically the same thing as GPL and CC-BY isn't basically the same thing as BSD
The fact is copyleft can be applied to things other than software.

BSD was actually first, you mongol

it was also open-source first

Big flaw in the GPL: AGPL is shit. Hosted services can make proprietary GPL derivatives, and if you try to use the AGPL you're actually prohibited from using any non-GPL software with it--no BSD, no LGPL, nothing. It's not free.

The GPL doesn't require me to make diagrams of how the program works for instructional purposes to help people reverse engineer it. It requires full source code distribution, when distributed in binary form.

*BSD OS see use even though the majority of BSD-based systems are proprietary.

Notably, TrueOS is a distro that sees some PC use. I don't dispute that there's a lot less reason to contribute back to BSD licensed projects, particularly BSD operating systems, than

It existed, but there were still copyright disputes and so on because open-sourcing previously proprietary code was new and all. Basically they publish the sources of their "binary blobs," and Linux doesn't, so they had to make their own custom open source versions of the blobs from third parties. Other projects like LLVM and Clang have similar traditions. As a result, LLVM actually does receive a lot of open-source code contributions from companies like AMD, Nvidia, and Qualcomm. They want people compiling code on their platforms.

Cuckoldry

Kek

Linux is a kernel.

Is BSD guy's cigarette in backwards?

I'd just like to interject for moment. What you're refering to as Linux, is in fact, Systemd/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, Systemd plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning Systemd system made useful by the Systemd corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX. Many computer users run a modified version of the Systemd system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of Systemd which is widely used today is often called Linux, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the Systemd system, developed by the Systemd Project. There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the Systemd operating system: the whole system is basically Systemd with Linux added, or Systemd/Linux. All the so-called Linux distributions are really distributions of Systemd/Linux.

/Thread

top lel