He thinks GPL'd sofware is a good idea

>he thinks GPL'd sofware is a good idea

Other urls found in this thread:

gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>he thinks that proprietary'd software is a good idea
Sure thing, Windows poster.

GPL = freedom
BSD = slavery

>he thinks that there are only two extremes with no reasonable MIT middle ground

...

> MIT
Cuck license

>Cuck license
Shitty meme

>MIT is a middle ground
>next to no rights reserved
>a middle ground
cracker you gay

>gpl
>Tyrone can borrow your wife whenever he wants as long as he tells everyone he’s fucking her and that it’s your wife.

>BSD
>Take this disgusting whore, I dont need her.

Now who’s the cuck

This.
Soon GPLfags will be saying WTFPL is the equivalent of Hitler, because it doesn't force a bunch of arbitrary restrictions that prevent you using the code in certain ways.

just remember
more restrictions on use == more freedom

>less restrictions
>mire free
Brain cancer. The only additional permission is that everyone is allowed to add more restrictions or make it completely botnet.

If you want to make sure the software is free and will stay free, don't fall for "permissive" cuck licenses.

>me no... me no like nuance...

>less restrictions
>more free
That is correct.

If restrain you from movement, does that make you free to move?

>give me more restrictions big daddy RMS!
Thank you for such a great example of GNU zealot mental gymnastics.

>permit slavery goyim
>it's the true freedom

Without the freedom to enslave I'm not really free at all.

>everything Great Leader Stallman doesn't force us to do is slavery

This is your brain on BSD. Remember kids, don't do BSD.

Can you please explain how the MIT license is equivalent to slavery.

I truly feel sorry for you and anyone around you that has to put up with your delusions.

Actually, wouldn't the GPL be Slavery proper?
Once you've indentured your code to it's new GPL master, you and it lose all freedom.
You must only be be beside ONLY other GPL indentured software, it's a license violation (get the whips out!)

Best example would be X. Since it was released under a permissive licence, companies took it and shipped it proprietary. While X is open source, only proprietary versions were used for a long time. At the end you got more restrictions than freedom.

>using a pushover licence

>letting Apple, Windows and Google steal your code without them giving anything back
You are really fucked in the head if you licence your code under these.

Look at wine and ask yourself why they switched to LGPL

I've no interest in forcing anyone to contribute to my software. If they want to use it, great, if they want to modify it, great. Whatever they do with it, I have the satisfaction of knowing my software was good enough for corporations to use it.

Why do you want to work for free user?

Because money does nothing for me. I live my life to learn as much as I can. I only need enough money to sustain myself.

You should ask yourself why you need money.

I dont need money but I do not like that corporations can use my shit for free, without giving back to the community.

But I respect your philosophy

I'm not going to deny anyone the freedom to use my software.

You're retarded. The GPL doesn't limit what you can do with your own code, a license only says what other people can do with your code. By releasing your code under a permissive license you are giving up your freedom in exchange for user freedom but under GPL you preserve your freedom while still giving the users all tye essential freedoms.

amen

BSD - allows everything including slavery

GPL - allows everything but slavery

BSD - freedom
>GPL - freedom restricting

yea if slavery is a freedom to you sure

See

>he thinks GPL isn't a license specifically for cucking your software

BSD/MIT:
>here do whatever you want with my wife
GPL:
>do whatever you want with my wife, but only If you let me do whatever I want with your wife

The wife analogy is even worse than car analogies.

>nuanced means good XD
You're a fucking imbecile. And I do think the GPL is a necessary evil.

The code, not the programmer, is intended to be free. No person can lock it down.

So what you're saying is FOSS is terrible full stop?
X is a terrible example to use, since the open source license proliferated it against the far superior NeWS

the state of gpl, literally a communist bureaucracy
>gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html

LGPL is the best license unironically.

Applying these analogies to software is retarded anyway. People can use whatever license they want. People here are just too insecure about their sex lives that they like to spend as much time poking at other people about it. Hasn't changed in 7 years and probably never will.

>Linux
>the most popular kernel in the whole world
>GPLv2

Sure seems a bad idea, huh ;^)

>Applying these analogies to software is retarded anyway
That was sort of my point, saying that x is even worse than y implies they're both bad

So that when I'm old and senile, I'll have money I can retire on and not need to work.
Also to eventually buy a house to live in and raise a family.

>Implying that you can't make money with GPL
>Implying GPL doesn't give you more money and recognition than permissive licenses.
Everybody knows about Linus Torvalds, nobody knows about the faggot who wrote the FreeBSD kernel.