File: 1456547726542.png (536.57 KB, 653x960, 653:960, 10624649_543932669121072_7….png)
No.532368
GPL licensing inherently restricts early commercial ventures by forcing the software to be open source. BSD licensing encourages proprietary sale which increases profit, software lifetime, and the odds of the software being made open source later.
No.532371
That explains why BSD is more popular than Linux.
No.532372
We get it, you want to monetize Linux and all good GPL projects.
It's not happening anon. Use BSD if you're that money hungry.
No.532376
Like BSD better but, this is a little much. If all programs a had BSD/X11-like licenses, we would have to deal with Linux being incomparable with Solaris or CC-BY-SA books being incomparable with GPL rendering software, hindering game development. With that being said, Linux is still a hell of about better then Windows, which of course is what most are enterprises are using.
No.532382
>>532372
Money is where the good development is
No.532389
>>532371
You're probably being sarcastic, but OSX is derived from BSD, and has much greater desktop popularity than Linux. So, in a way, a descendant of BSD is more popular than Linux.
No.532397
>>532389
OSX has some BSD bolted onto it, but it's a streach to call it a BSD derivative.
No.532406
>>532389
> and has much greater desktop popularity than Linux
desktop popularity has nothing to do with license but with normies using whatever Apple push to them, it would have made no difference if Apple had forked a GPL linux for their OS.
On the other hand in the server domain where license choice definitely affects the user selection process, BSD is completely crushed by linux.
No.532410
BSD is such a cuck license.
No.532421
>>532406
>no difference
>has never read the GPL
No.532461
>>532389
everything descended from BSD, from Windows network stack to Playstation firmwares
you gotta be stupid to not use excellent code licensed for free
No.532462
>>532368
BSD license would induce patent wars even worst.
No.532483
BSD is pretty much a cuck licenses. Approved by the Cuck King.
No.532492
>>532397
>>532406
>it would have made no difference if Apple had forked a GPL linux for their OS
Except they would gain little profit since modifications would also be open source allowing competition to die quickly.
No.532500
>>532492
They've got their brand image to generate sales.
Even if OSX could run on any computer, Macfags would still buy Apple because muh brand loyalty.
No.532510
>>532368
>corp cuck mentality
>here ivri, I give you the hard work of many loyal goyim to enslave more of our people
No.532544
Yes, that is the point of it. You get software for Free, you give back, simple.
>BSD licensing encourages proprietary sale which increases profit, software lifetime, and the odds of the software being made open source later.
So you're saying we should trust the company to pay its share some later time in the future, without any guarantee or down payment. That seems a bit unidirectional as far as generosity goes.
No.532556
>>532368
then why does all the money for open source go to linux projects,e.g. red hat enterprise?
No.532607
>>532382
And that's why windows owns the supercomputer top500, right?
No.532632
GPL is a cancerous communist virus that enslaves you and forces you to do what your jew master RMS wants you to do rather than what you want to do. You can't be a programmer and work for free like GPL ends up have you doing. The BSD is a free license that lets you do whatever the fuck you want with the source code, it's truly fair and free. If we want innovation to keep on, we must boycott all GPL software till nobody uses it anymore.
No.532637
>>532632
Beware, some retards might really mean this.
No.532639
>>532632
GPL is true, laissez faire, free market capitalism that protects the people and those who create from corporate exploitation. BSD is the bastardized corporatist "capitalism", which allows corporations to steal from the people and form monopolies where competition from anyone outside of another massive corporation is damn near impossible, and which is leading to the death of the free world.
No.532641
>>532639
I can't make money off your lobertarian GPL bullshit. Nobody is going to pay for it when the source code is free.
No.532647
>>532389
OS X is derived from NeXT which is derived from BSD
OS X is considerably worse than both. It is the worst performing, least secure *nix known to man, even in puredarwin form. Apple discontinued the server edition because nobody wanted to touch that steaming pile of crap when they could use something that hadn't been raped by a cohort of incompetent programmers that couldn't even manage to write a working multitasking OS. OS X is, therefore, limited to a desktop OS.
Permissive licensing at work. When the code isn't open, nobody can say anything but "uh, it works!". The free market takes over and it succeeds if people can be fooled into paying the parent company for something.
>>532639
I wouldn't call forcing people to give up their property (individual copies of data) and using the force of law to enforce ownership of other people's copies "free market capitalism". Restriction of property to alter the way the economy works and affects society is the antithesis of laissez faire capitalism.
Corporate exploitation and other incentives to not be a failure and a leech are integral to it.
There is no such thing as a stolen idea in libertarianism. Just an asshole who didn't give credit, not that he had to.
No.532648
>>532641
You just want other people to make BSD-licensed code that you can slap your name on to make money, we know who you are and we hate you for it.
No.532659
>>532641
It works well enough for the Google playstore. Plenty of people are willing to pay for open source software if it's easier than compiling it themselves. With BSD (and other permissive licenses) people just grab code, give it a different logo and a prettier name, add in some spyware and ads, maybe if they're slightly more competent than the average playstore "developer" clean up the UI a bit to make it prettier in the screenshots - without giving any of their improvements back to the community, of course - and throw it up for sale. And then they're making money off of your work, when they did nothing or almost nothing, and there is nothing you can do to stop them. You can't even improve your product to be better than their product, because anything you improve they can take, while anything they improve is theirs and theirs alone. I'm not too fond of that dumb cuck meme, but the BSD license is damn close to the definition of cuckolding. You put in effort to raise the product of someone else.
No.532673
>>532647
I was exaggerating and being extreme in that post as a counter to who I was replying to. Still, I believe GPL is closer to a true free market than BSD is, and BSD is closer to the corporatism that often gets passed off as and mistaken for capitalism in modern society.
>Corporate exploitation and other incentives to not be a failure and a leech are integral to it.
Corporations, or more accurately the massive all-powerful corporations of today, are inherently anti-free market because they can only exist from government regulations being enforced on the market. GPL is anti-free market because it relies on state intervention, but it is a byproduct of a greater evil which only exists because of much greater state interventions. The harm the GPL causes to capitalism is a temporary wound which enables the free market to grow stronger, while dealing a much greater wound to corporatism, and weakening the corporations that exploit and harm the free market.
No.532677
>>532648
That's how a truly fair and free license would work. In the end, developers will probably open source their software eventually.
No.532679
For coreutils, libraries, collaborative projects, and stuff that thrives on revenue sources other than selling software/cloud services, the GPL can be a great thing.
For actual competitive software in the real world that has to make money, BSD/partial/delayed source is the best we can hope for. Don't be fooled otherwise: A corporation does not care about your autistic software freedoms. It does not care for human life except when it's beneficial for them to do so over not doing so. Like the Terminator, the corporation is an amoral machine with a single prime directive: Make money for shareholders through any means possible. If that means discarding bleeding hearts to turn a profit, they're absolutely incentivized not to use GPL code. Only developers care about this stuff, anyways. Normies couldn't care less about muh software freedums.
No.532687
No.532688
>>532368
That's funny last I checked Linux is still the largest software project known to man, you
GOD DAMN SHILL CUCK LICENCE FAGGOT
No.532689
>>532688
GPL is the cuck license. You're cucked because you're forced to release the source code against your will, unlike permissive licenses like BSD.
No.532691
>>532641
If I wrote software I intended to sell the dumb masses, why would I license it under any of the GPL or BSD? More importantly, why would I sell binaries or source for the dumb masses? The real money is in contracting. Else, you're pic related.
Regardless... the GPLv3 core thought is an idealogical fantasy that well illustrates the demeanor of RMS. GPLv3 and GPLv1 is written with an assumption that free software is under attack, and written with the "its my way, or the highway attitude". Simply, Stallman wants to give no quarter to fulfil his pipe dream. The reality is that free software development never had this much mutually beneficial growth with proprietary software ever in FLOSS's entire history.
That doesn't mean these licenses are a bad thing. It just means that authors need to be aware of the consequences when you copy a LICENSE file and admend the sources. If they want to help Richard, so be it.
Also:
>lobertarian
>doesn't want to sell their shit
Huh. Yet, you encourage licensing on BSD. Its like you don't have foreskin or something. Go back to bitching on github, bluehaired faggot.
No.532692
>>532689
You're not forced to release it. If it makes you release it, that's because you voluntarily chose to use GPL-licensed work, and you're not doing anything the creator of that work was unwilling to do.
No.532695
>>532692
True freedom would allow me to release a fork of GPL licensed software as proprietary.
No.532696
>>532632
Apple here. Thank you for all your good work, and we have transferred another $2 to your account.
No.532699
>>532695
True freedom would allow me to release a fork of BSD licensed software without any kind of copyright notice.
No.532736
>>532695
True freedom would allow me to enslave other people.
No.532738
>>532736
>GNUtard commie thinks proprietary software is slavery.
Grow up, if I was truly free I would have the choice to release it as open source or proprietary software. I want /lefty pol/ to get off my board.
No.532743
>>532738
>I want /lefty pol/ to get off my board.
everyone go home, hes not even trying, nothing to see here keep moving
No.532752
>>532738
/leftypol/ is the cancer that's killing /tech/
No.532753
If you haven't written at least 1000 lines of code this week, shut the fuck up about licensing, open your editor write some software and when you finally put your blood sweetened tiers into something you can talk.
No.532754
>>532743
>>532752
I want /leftypol/ to fuck off you idiots, learn to fucking read. They're the ones who support this shitty GPL license
No.532758
>>532754
>learn to fucking read
I agree /leftypol/ should fuck off, retard.
LEARN TO FUCKING READ
E
A
R
N
T
O
F
U
C
K
I
N
G
R
E
A
D
No.532759
>>532758
And I'm glad you're on the same page. If we're to get /leftypol/ to fuck off, stop supporting GPL
No.532765
>>532759
>If we're to get /leftypol/ to fuck off, stop supporting GPL
Looks like you hit New Reply too quickly, retard.
No.532767
>>532765
GPL is communist nonsense
No.532769
>All of these commies misunderstanding BSD
It's not "come steal my shit", it's "I already got paid for it"
>Implying anyone would want to touch your shitty GPL code
No.532772
>>532769
Exactly, i already know if it's GPL, it's shit.
No.532779
This takes the cake for the worst same fagging circle jerk thread on /tech/ in a long time, dear faggot: You dont belong here fuck off cancer. Love anon <3
No.532780
>>532738
It's an analogy. Proprietary software is not slavery, but it has things in common.
When you make something proprietary, you might be exercising some freedom you have, but it's taking other people's freedom away. It's making the world less free.
No.532783
>>532779
Blame the GPL fags.
>>532780
User freedom is irrelevant, developer freedom is more important, especially when you limit what I can do.
No.532784
>>532783
YOU ARE THE CANCER ANON
PLEASE
KILL YOURSELF
GO TO /g/ IF YOU DONT CARE ABOUT USER RIGHTS AND LOVE TO BE CUCKED
No.532786
>>532783
Software being proprietary hinders other developers, too.
And why would user freedom be irrelevant? I think this is your root problem with the GPL - the GPL is all about user freedom.
No.532789
>>532784
I bet you would fucking love having your wife shared as long as everyone signs a license agreeing to share their wives. Fucking dumbass cuck.
>>532786
Maybe I don't fucking want to share the source code, maybe I don't want to work for free. /pol/ was right, this place is full of cucks.
No.532794
>>532789
>I bet you would fucking love having your wife shared as long as everyone signs a license agreeing to share their wives
welcome to false equivalents, the game where you think that something that is cloned and put on hardware you own is taking the original version! You also are the kind of faggot who thinks when you download an album offline for free youre "stealing"
>Maybe I don't fucking want to share the source code
the GPL doesnt make you do this. The GPL says if you give code to someone they have the right to learn how it works and modify it.
>maybe I don't want to work for free
But you love cuck licenses like BSD and MIT? Where a company can take your work, make it proprietary and you wont even know they fucking did it?
CONGRATS! YOU DIDNT PUT ANY THOUGHT INTO THIS TOPIC AND THINK THAT SOMEHOW MAKING CODE WITH PEOPLES RIGHTS IN MIND IS COMMUNISM! BECAUSE IN COMMUNISM YOU CAN CLONE ALL ASSETS AND WEALTH WITHOUT ANYONE LOSING ANYTHING
LEAVE!
No.532795
>>532780
>it's taking other people's freedom away. It's making the world less free.
Exactly. GPL actually has some logic in common with libertarianism and their Non-Aggression Principle, despite advocates of some more permissive licenses claiming it's a "communist license". The GPL follows the belief that you do not and should not have a right to infringe upon the freedoms and rights of another. If your action takes away, hinders, or in any other way infringes upon another person's freedom, than being prevented from performing that action is not an infringement upon your freedom. Freedom is not absolute anarchy, nor is it absolute chaos or discord. If one can strip another of their freedom, and have that ability enshrined as a fundamental "freedom" or "right", than they are not truly free.
Unless, of course, the person whose freedom you are taking away happens to consent to that action, fully understanding the consequences of their consent, in which case it is two or more consenting adults entering into an agreement in which one loses some freedoms. People do have the right to waive or infringe upon their own freedoms, but to forcefully take away the freedoms of another or to force them to waive their freedoms is an infringement upon their rights and should be prevented.
No.532796
>>532789
>Maybe I don't fucking want to share the source code
Then use a different license.
>>532783
>developer freedom is more important, especially when you limit what I can do.
Then use a different license.
No.532798
>>532794
Calm down kid, don't you have homework to be doing?
>>532796
That's why I support BSD. You're not forced to use the same license or release the source code. Communist licenses like GPL limits trade, like communists always have.
No.532803
No.532804
>>532803
Enjoy working for free
No.532807
>>532804
Do you think?
You will use a cuck license to work for free, have your code used in anything at all and then sold without so much as a glance at you, the only difference here is you're helping corporations distribute software that limits your ability to modify products that you can use.
good goy!
No.532810
>>532807
BSD isn't a cuck license, GPL is.
No.532811
>>532810
Yes the license called permissive is the one with a backbone, kill yourself.
No.532812
>>532368
then why is GNU/Linux more popular than the BSD OSes?
No.532814
>>532811
I can't wait till trump gets elected and you berniecucks finally hang yourselves.
No.532815
>>532814
So you finally realized you have nothing to say? Great, please leave
Im a libertarian
No.532816
>>532815
Who are you voting for, cuck?
No.532818
>>532816
I was going to vote Rand but im undecided right now that hes gone
No.532820
>>532794
>But you love cuck licenses like BSD and MIT? Where a company can take your work, make it proprietary and you wont even know they fucking did it?
Nigger I DON'T GIVE A SHIT.
No.532824
>>532818
Of course you were going to vote for that manlet, you're a cuck. Anyone with a brain would vote for trump.
No.532827
>>532824
>Anyone with a brain would vote for trump.
THIS.
TRUMP2016
TRUMP2020
No.532843
>>532827
Trump is going to rid america of communist garbage like GPL and GNU. Time to make america great and uncucked again.
No.532850
This thread started off nice, but it seems to have devolved into /pol/ and /leftypol/ shit flinging at each other. Thanks for ruining yet another thread with your pointless garbage.
No.532851
>>532368
gib source or your a fag
No.532852
>>532794
>But you love cuck licenses like BSD and MIT? Where a company can take your work, make it proprietary and you wont even know they fucking did it?
Wrong. They can not "take" it, they can only copy it. Someone taking something implies that he removes it from original location/something is lost from the original, but in this case I loose nothing. If a company doesn't want to contribute, they can just publish code obfuscated enough to make trying to use it pain in the ass, but not enough to risk legal action, GPL or not.
No.532859
>>532850
/pol/ is always right and /leftypol/ is always wrong
No.532860
>>532639
I don't want to derail this thread into an economics debate but monopolies are inevitable in any capitalist system.
No.532863
>>532639
>bastardized corporatist "capitalism"
Consolidation, monopolies, and anti-competitive behavior are capitalism in its purest form. The idea of a truly free market is a myth.
No.532867
>>532673
>the massive all-powerful corporations of today, are inherently anti-free market because they can only exist from government regulations being enforced on the market.
Holy hell open a fucking history book already. Before anti-trust legislation corporations could get away with even worse shit than they do today. Ever heard of the fucking Guilded Age?
No.532872
>implying anyone wants to buy your shitty repackaged FOSS code
No.532881
>>532872
Free software is garbage made by neckbeards. Why do you think GNU software has exploits found every 5 minutes
No.532915
>>532852
The GPL requires "the preferred form for modifying", not just "source code". Obfuscated code is not enough.
No.532917
>>532852
Read the 2nd line of the post and use your thinker! Anythings possible when you can read!
No.532920
>>532814
>trumpcucks love sucking dicks
kek
No.532929
>>532368
>m-m-maybe if they copy my code and make millions of dollars they might give it back! Oh most proprietary licenses strictly prevent that, and companies make people sign licenses saying any code they make involving the company belongs to it...
>Maybe Sony will finally give us SOMETHING, after all they based their last 2 consoles on BSD code! Oh they threw people in jail for trying to control the thing they paid for...
Cucks sit and hope.
No.532954
>>532867
>gilded
How embarrassing.
No.532956
>>532673
this nigga gets it
No.533202
>>532795
>The GPL follows the belief that you do not and should not have a right to infringe upon the freedoms and rights of another.
So when I put effort into coding and I sell it I'm infringing on freedom if I don't let them see source?
No.533203
>>532812
debatable. Linux has estimated 83 million users. There are 30 million PS4s alone.
>>532929
Sony is not obligated to share BSD code they developed. Why would they be?
No.533229
>>533203
>debatable. Linux has estimated 83 million users. There are 30 million PS4s alone.
1. Linux powers the whole Internet. You're not even counting Android, which uses the Linux kernel.
2. How much has PS4/Apple/etc. helped the BSD ecosystem? With Linux, people who want to improve it usually make the changes available upstream.
No.533236
>>533203
>PS4 is BSD
Lol okay. It might use BSD code but it's about as much BSD as Android is Linux, and don't get me started in the amount of Android devices
No.533258
>>532382
>Money is where the good development is
All software sucks.
No.533273
>>533202
Look up the 4 freedoms of free software. You will be infringing on all of them.
No.533511
>>533229
>people who want to improve it usually make the changes available upstream.
except google :^)
>>533236
So the answer is yes?
Neither of you explained why sony is obligated to share their code.
No.533560
>>533202
>So when I put effort into coding and I sell it I'm infringing on freedom if I don't let them see source?
I would personally say yes but justifiable with certain conditions, and most GPL supporters would say yes unconditionally unjustifiable; give me a moment to explain. If you modify GPL software, you do not have a right or freedom to infringe upon what the GPL views as the fundamental freedoms. Someone who greatly supports the GPL would likely say that what you are claiming, under any circumstances, is a violation of another persons freedoms and therefor inexcusable. To these people, making any software that does not meet the GPL's standards is wrong. My condition, however, is that in what you describe the person is consenting to this infringement upon their freedom by purchasing and using the software, knowing that it is proprietary. As I said before
>People do have the right to waive or infringe upon their own freedoms, but to forcefully take away the freedoms of another or to force them to waive their freedoms is an infringement upon their rights and should be prevented.
Selling proprietary software to informed individuals is an infringement upon their rights, but it is an infringement that they consent to, and if they are not forced into giving that consent, then that's OK. If they are somehow forced or coerced into giving that consent, or do not understand what that consent means, then that is not truly consenting to it, and is therefor not justified.
No.533577
Lol OP, if this were true then BSD would actually be successful, and we all know that couldn't be the case.
No.533588
>>533577
BSD is successful. Not on the level of GNU and Linux, but Netflix uses FreeBSD to handle 37% of the US internet traffic, for example.
No.533590
No.533698
>>533577
>netflix
>sony
>pfsense
>toyota
>joyent
No success at all aye bruh.
Keep on measuring success by how many people rice their desktops.
No.533702
>>532368
>BSD licensing encourages the odds of the software being made open source later
Somebody tell that to Apple.
No.533777
>>533702
>Darwin is an open-source Unix operating system released by Apple Inc. in 2000.
No.533779
>>533777
It's 2000+16. Is Darwin still current with latest Mac OS X? Can you compile it? Does it even boot correctly on the latest MacBook? Wake up, gaylord. Apple doesn't give a shit.
No.533822
>>533590
It has one of the most popular compilers in the world and it runs on a fuckton of servers.
No.533861
>>533779
>Darwin still current with latest Mac OS X
Graphics? nah they dropped X in 2005.
Everything else? yep
No.533884
>>533861
>Everything else? yep
I don't believe you
No.533903
>>532382
No money is where the sheltered investment is at. Bill & Co. managed to kick the bear's ass back in the day, and it's still reverberating around Wall St.
As that generation dies off, eventually Wangblows, et al, will be dumped down the shitter where it belongs.
No.533939
BSD is better because I grew up and saw communism as unsuitable for profit.
No.533941
>>533702
Apple shouldn't have to release the source code. They wouldn't be able to make profit if they did.
No.536548
>>533941
>They wouldn't be able to make profit if they did.
Explain to me how Google makes a profit off of Android and crOS.
No.536989
>>532406
>Licensing is not important when it wouldn't be a good argument for me
Fixed that for you. Everyone knows how hard you would be screetching if mac was using linux
No.537023
>>532389
>desktop
>having any worth
No.537066
>>532372
Very much THIS
However, BSD is definitely not without it's merits. In the worst case scenario something goes insanely wrong in the Linux world, you can always fallback to BSD because it'll always be truly free to use. And ironically enough, I wouldn't be surprised if BSD devs are financially better off than their Linux counterparts considering both Sony and Apple pay FreeBSD, NASA likely donating to NetBSD, and so on. Despite all this, you also have to admit there's a lot BSD gets right in that it's been proven to be more efficient code than Linux in many cases.
No.537251
>>536548
>Android
By tacking on proprietary extensions on top of the (mostly ish) open source android platform. If android were completely open source AOSP wouldn't exist
No.537284
>>533698
And in all those examples you listed, how much has each company's usage of BSD helped BSD for everyone else? Practically none.
No.537290
>>537066
Maybe, maybe not. BSD's merits had nothing to do with my post anon. And if it's so great there is no need to argue about it anyway, is there?
No.537302
File: 1457240137771.jpg (46.72 KB, 405x506, 405:506, 65476497614694616469411313….jpg)
>>532368
>GPL licensing inherently restricts early commercial ventures by forcing the software to be open source
Missing the point of the licence, you haven't read anything don't you ?
>and the odds of the software being made open source later
This happened on very rare occasion on big software there is 1 on 1000000 chances for this to happen.
it seems that everyone (including this fag) took the bait.
This thread is a lost of time for everyone /pol/ and other shitposting fags go back from where you belong, stop wasting others time and the resources of the servers.
This thread is bullshit it belongs to the trash
No.541555
>OSX uses old BASH because it's licensed GPLv2 and not GPLv3
No.541566
>>532368
>enterprise adoption
Bad example. Red Hat makes loads by selling enterprise services with their distro. What doesn't kick off is the consumer market instead.
No.541647
>>541555
Is that the reason? I thought they were just pulling a Debian.
No.542021
>>532389
>a descendant of BSD is more popular than Linux
Linux is the most popular kernel in software history retard. Did you forget Android?
Meanwhile most of Apple's original contributions to OSX are proprietary and will always be, which contradicts your claim about pushover licenses increasing the likelihood of software being released. With the GPL any public modification goes libre from day one.
By the way, I assume you meant derivative works being made free, because it doesn't even make sense to free software that was already free, but in the case of pushover licenses it makes perfect sense for greedy enterprises who don't give a shit about freedom to take free software verbatim and distribute it as a binary blob.
>>532397
>>532406
>>532647
+1
>>532639
I prefer the GPL because I think given a copyright framework it allows for perpetually-free software to exist and I want to maximize the amount of free software. This means that the GPL's copyleft depends on copyright to turn the more common and inadequate use of copyright on its head. However I don't think there's an ethical and lawful rationale for copyright according to capitalism and liberal values. Copyright trashes the actual property rights of lawful customers and subjects it to the whims of "intelectual property" right-holders.
Having said that, I would prefer to keep copyright and heavily reform it and reverse its trends rather than completely abolishing it, for two reasons:
1) although I think no copyright is more ethical, I would prefer democratic states to move more gradually through the policy space to find whatever works best. The international political landscape is so invested in copyright bullshit and the Berne convention that even our current Pirate parties would accuse the abrogation of copyright of radicalism.
2) As explained above, copyright allows for a proprietary+pushover_free+almost_perpetually_free scenario to exist, whereas with no copyright all works would either fall in the proprietary or potentially proprietary categories. Banning proprietary software altogether would be needed in addition to the elimination of copyright to make things non-worse than today. In fact, it would make things better because all software would be free as required by law, and copyleft wouldn't be necessary anymore. That's more radical a change however
>>532641
>Nobody is going to pay for it when the source code is free
What about red-pilled guys like me who know that free software devs need money to to keep working on free software? In fact I donate more money to free software, specially GPL projects than I would pay for proprietary software because I'm politically motivated to do so.
No.542035
>>542021
>Android
based on linux, not comparable to a desktop linux kernel.
>popularity
PS3 has sold over 20 million units, PS4 35 million.
>What about red-pilled guys like me
If only the whole world was redpilled like you it would be great! Things like anarchism and communism would both work if only everyone thought like you!
More software being developed for a platform (even if proprietary) will produce more support for that base software than if you pushed companies away (knowing they would have to make all contributions OS/libre) and having fewer projects be completely open source.
No.542066
>>532410
>said the guy with mouthful of poettering's cum
No.542077
Licensing sould be a non-issue.
Anyone should be able without to use any piece of code they lay their hands on without having a legion of lawyers up their ass.
The only purpose of software is to be useful, not unlike a hardware tool; it's not being butthurt about muh rights and muh ownership.
Of course, not having the ability to audit, fix up code, and propagate improvements is a major drawback, so proprietary software is necessarily inferior.
No.542098
gpl really needs to be hard clear about that library linking thing. I've heard it's fud, and that it's not and it pretty much however whoever reads it wants to interpret it.
No.542103
>>542098
That GPL stuff is FUD.
First of all, your source code is NEVER a derivative work (unless your code actually comes from someone elses stuff.)
But for a a binary if your binary directly compiles in the library it is a derivative work. If you have a shared library or some other way someone can swap in an alternate version of the library than your compiled binary is not a derivative work.
That all said maybe Linux should have a nicer distinction between modules and the core.
No.542108
>>532867
> Holy hell open a fucking history book
>Guilded Age
kek
No.542109
>>532759
your reading comprehension is top tier, kiddo
No.542118
Just dual license the code with BipCot NoGov and GNU GPL to give devs options.
BSD, MIT, X11 permits anyone to fork your work to either oblivion, corporate exploits, or sublicensing to GPL. Freedom to take away freedom.
Bipcot lets your code be exploited like with BSD except governments and its agents.
No.542468
>>532389
It also has alot of GNU.
No.542492
Lawyer here
EUPL is what you want
Sadly most merricunts don't know about it
It's also the only sensible licence for corporate adoption of free as in freedom software across yurop because of its warranty/liability section
No.543406
I like the GPL for it's anti-hypocrisy clause. In other words, IF YOU BENEFIT FROM FREE SHIT YOU CANNOT DENY OTHER PEOPLE THOSE SAME OPPORTUNITIES, YOU ASSHOLE.
No.543487
>>542077
>Of course, not having the ability to audit, fix up code, and propagate improvements is a major drawback, so proprietary software is necessarily inferior.
The ability to have code audited does not inherently make it superior
>>543406
If I put my own time and effort into making a program that operates differently from the source I am not "denying" their opportunities to read the open source code I originally used (that is still open source in the original project).
No.549000
>>542066
>implying you are either a BSDcuck or a SytemDicksucker
No.549002
>>543487
>The ability to have code audited does not inherently make it superior
At least withe the source code you have some chance to audit it.. Without the source code you have NO chance.