[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]

/gentoo/ - Technology

Install gentoo.

Catalog

8chan Bitcoin address: 1NpQaXqmCBji6gfX8UgaQEmEstvVY7U32C
The next generation of Infinity is here (discussion) (contribute)
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Options
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4
Max filesize is 8 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 2 per post.


File: 1411616607907.png (105.13 KB, 940x723, 940:723, OpenSourceLicenseCompariso….png)

 No.267

Comparisons of licenses thread.

What is the best license and why is it the MIT license, /gentoo/?

 No.269

File: 1411616847355.jpg (297.32 KB, 1200x1500, 4:5, DadMayIBorrowTo.jpg)


 No.271

>>267
you should add creative commons licence in that list

 No.272

>>271
The GIMP is strong with this one.

 No.274

>>271
lolno never use CC for code, it's pretty stupid to do that

BSD for code, CC-BY for art

 No.276

File: 1411638729018.png (121.36 KB, 229x345, 229:345, gUvLnV.png)

You did your research wrong, MS-RL actually looks good in this chart

>writing FLOSS

>using micro-soft license
not in a billion years

 No.281

>>276
Man, I didn't even know that MS had an open source license.

 No.282

>>276
Man, I didn't even know that MS had an open source license.

 No.318

>>276
Man, I didn't even know that MS had an open source license.

 No.320

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
Missing many of FSF approved licenses.

 No.322

>>320
>implying the FSF gives good guidance on anything.

 No.578

>mfw GNU software licensing
>https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility

Also, Unlicense masterrace.

 No.579

>>267
You forgot best license is ISC which is the most preferred.
>>320
FSF is idiotic why would I trust them on anything?

 No.586

>>579
>being a heretic

 No.589

>>586
wot?

 No.599

>>579
>FSF is idiotic why would I trust them on anything
Because GPL is the best license. Non copy-left licenses such as MIT or Apache just wanna please the companies and let them steal others people work without giving anything back.

 No.600

>>599
I don't like dealing with politics too much I don't care if people take my work even.

 No.601

>>599
Gpl restrict the user as well rather then allow free use of the code. How is that any way close to Freedom?

 No.603

>>601

I don't get why people dislike GPL so much. The only real restrictions it has is for assholes. You can't take my code, close the source, claim it as your own, and then sell it. It protects you from shitty people and corporations like Microsoft or Apple or some script kiddie.

If your code was MIT I could use it, claim it as my own, make millions or billions off it, not give you a single penny or contribute any improvements I made back to your project, claim I made it and take the credit for it, even if it was something you spend hundreds or thousands of hours on, and you couldn't do a damn thing about it. With some licenses I could even take your code, patent it, and then sue you. It wouldn't matter if you could prove that you originally made it and that I got it from you, I patented it, you're fucked. Or I could take your code, completely fuck it up and turn it into an absolute piece of shit, say it was originally made by you, and damage your reputation, drive users away from your project, harm your ability to get a good job, etc.

With GPL anyone else can view, modify, fork, or use my code. You can take all or just parts of my code and use it in your software or even take my code, change the name, make no mention of me on your website, and then sell it or charge for support so long as it remains GPL and grants uses the same freedoms that mine does. You can't however, use my name to endorse your fork without my permission which is good in case you fuck it up or do something malicious that would end up making me look bad.

True, GPL isn't a do whatever the fuck you want license, but it grants a lot of freedom, it just doesn't give as much freedom for someone to be an asshole. Please explain how GPL is bad for the average user or developer.

 No.604

>>603
If ssh was released under gpl you wouldn't be able to use it freely or study the code. mit/ISC allow you to freely modify the code etc gpl does not. If my code was MIT/ISC people are able to freely study and do what they want with it. any version of GPL does not. It is not freedom if it restricts your freedom.

 No.605

>>604
Uhm… you can modify, study, or fork GPL code. Look at all the GPL software that has been forked, released under a new name, and heavily modified. Look at all the GPL software that has hundreds or thousands of people studying, modifying, and committing their modifications upstream.

Is there something I'm not getting or…?

 No.606

>>605
I think what he's trying to say is that the only freedom that the GPL restricts from is the freedom to remove others' freedom, and for some reason permissivefags see this as okay.

 No.607

>>606
That not what i'm getting at, they are restricting other people freedom rather they like it or not. So it does not equal freedom it equal forced freedom.

 No.608

>>601
I'm really tired of this retarded argument. The restriction is there so you can't take other's freedom away.

It's like saying prohibiting slavery is less free than allowing it because now you don't have the freedom to own slaves.

 No.609

>>607
Like >>608 said, this is a retarded argument.

My freedom ends where your's begins and visa-versa. That's like saying laws against murder, rape, or theft are anti-freedom because they restrict your freedom to murder, rape, or steal.

Like I said >>603 it still grants you a lot of freedom. If you were going to talk about how it makes it a pain in a ass to switch to a different license or how it forces the developer to show the license when run from the command line I would understand. I would also understand if you didn't like it because it was overly long and complex for what it is, but the whole, hurr, it doesn't grant me the freedom take other people's freedoms away so it's anti-freedom thing is bullshit imo.

 No.610

>>609
>
My freedom ends where your's begins and visa-versa. That's like saying laws against murder, rape, or theft are anti-freedom because they restrict your freedom to murder, rape, or steal.

I never implied that. I am just saying gpl is anti freedom they are like communist. It forces the license onto others.

>

Like I said >>603 it still grants you a lot of freedom. If you were going to talk about how it makes it a pain in a ass to switch to a different license or how it forces the developer to show the license when run from the command line I would understand. I would also understand if you didn't like it because it was overly long and complex for what it is, but the whole, hurr, it doesn't grant me the freedom take other people's freedoms away so it's anti-freedom thing is bullshit imo.

Gpl is anti freedom you have never provided why it is for freedom. Thus your argument is entire bullshit and just.
>muh emotion
>muh gpl
>muh free software
>muh copyleft bullshit
>wahhhh

 No.612

>>610
>Gpl is anti freedom you have never provided why it is for freedom.

Holy shit, you're obtuse. Me and other anons said it - it enforces freedom for everyone, that why it's better. You're the one who has no arguments.

 No.613

>>612
>
Holy shit, you're obtuse. Me and other anons said it - it enforces freedom for everyone, that why it's better. You're the one who has no arguments.

Forcing freedom is not freedom tho it like forcing anarchist on people who clearly do not want it. Nice adhominem tho.

 No.614

>>613

Then what license do you think is free (as in freedom)?

 No.615

>>614
ISC tho that because I'm a openbsd user.

 No.634

>>267
>must show license when run from the command line
That's written after the divider saying "license ends here" or something to that effect. It's merely a suggestion. Bash is GPL-licensed and it doesn't sperg out about it whenever you launch it.

As for the argument above, GPL is great for freedoms… in a way. It maximises the freedoms of the user, future users and future developers at the expense of the freedoms of the merchants.

 No.636

>>634
>at the expense of the freedoms of the merchants

Nah, most businesses would be more free too. Problem is, most businesses don't care about freedom, most only care about providing locked products or services for money and freedom doesn't help them.

The anti-freedom issue is a bit complex, but I strongly believe that the freedom to take freedom away can't really be considered a form of freedom. I can accept that non-copy left might be better sometimes: some companies contribute to projects under those licenses because they can make them proprietary. However, I don't think those are any more free.

 No.787

Permissive/public domain/unlicensed > copyleft because copyleft implicitly endorses the continued existence of intellectual "property".


 No.788

>>787

Don't forget with copyleft they also sign nda making it so they can't talk about the code.


 No.789

>>788

Source for that? sounds like FUD to me, unless you're talking about hardware drivers or something. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DevelopChangesUnderNDA

not that I like FSF, but disliking them for the right reasons is important.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]