bsd turds are just the contrarians who are in a never ending psuedo quest for obscurity and most of them don't let the train stop here and go for haiku or plan9.
bsd is stolen by every major corporation and bsdrones actually view this as some sort of compliment while calling the GPL a virus in their 5 man IRC circlejerk
Just yesterday we had a thread on some guy trying to use pfsense to put together a router >literally no wifi drivers >"Oh you have to buy this one card from 2003 that's probably G only" r u fukken serious
bsd is so fucking dead, and bsd losers always insist on telling me that it was ahead of linux 25 years ago and was first but they had some bullshit lawsuits with AT&T and unix at the very same time that linux took off. How utterly fucking appropriate, I genuinely believe that highschool jocks made BSD for suicide nerd containment.
>>52909398 That's a non-copyleft license. MIT can be even free-er than 3-clause BSD, it allows derivatives to use your name for promotional purposes which is probably not a good thing unless you're okay with your name potentially being associated with knockoffs
>>52915221 There's no getting to those GPL dumbasses, they're the Jehovahs Witnesses of the Licensing world. >false sense of freedom >overly preachy >cult-like agreement of the GPL, no criticism or questioning is tolerated
>>52915553 Sony also decided to compromise computer security to all their users with a rootkit made with stolen GPL code (in fact they were only successfully sued for doing that because they violated the GPL, even though the rootkit was the most pressing issue).
>>52915676 Because Sony didn't honor the GPL terms, which guarantees that your code will always be free and will not be used to mistreat it's users. That's the whole point of copyleft, to guarantee freedom. I'd imagine that if Sony had honored the GPL from the start, their rootkit wouldn't have gotten anywhere. If you want to mistreat and jail your users, that's your choice. But you're not going to use my code or the code of anyone that cares enough about freedom to use the GPL in the process.
>>52915221 >Only the GPL freetards are always butthurt about corporations taking the code.
No, that's not the problem at all.
>This is the fucking intention, anyone can do with the code anything the fuck they want, this is the only and true freedom.
Ok, so remind us all again why it's unreasonable to ask that the corporations who are using other people's code in the first place share what they did they with it?
And it's not like they have to give it away for free. There's nothing in the GPL that prevents you from selling your software for money, you just have to provide source code to customers. What's wrong with that?
>>52916469 Why is it unreasonable not to? Remember that this is a BSD hate thread. It always is. GPL tards are the only ones getting ass blasted over this, never able to accept any other viewpoint than their own.
I honestly give no fucks about what someone does with my code. Copy left cucks have serious ego issues. If someone took my code and integrated it into a commercial product, I'd be honored.
Software patents and copywrites only stifle innovation. I work for a very large software company. The amount of money and man hours we have to spend tip toeing around open source licensing issues is insane, and it's mostly because of patent lawsuits and not actual licensing issues. Using open source code can weaken your defense patents.
>>52916726 As it's been said before. WebKit was based on a GPL project (KHTML), so they had to release it as GPL.
Darwin is Apple's way to outsource OS X backend development without having to provide the source of the whole OS. It's licence and large amounts of copy-pasted BSD code meant that OS X was developed at little cost, without needing to return anything to the community.
>>52916765 >If someone took my code and integrated it into a commercial product, I'd be honored. Unless they made a significant amount of money by modifying your code, without giving you even access to their modified version of your work (or any money).
>open source licencing is too hard for business Then don't use it. Pay your own teams to reimplement the shit. I hate it when someone (particularly a for-profit) complains that their free lunch doesn't taste nice enough.
>be GPL supporter reading the replies by others in this thread >so many people complaining that the developers don't "give back to the community" The point of the GPL isn't that big companies which use your software have to give back to you in any way (besides credit) The point of the GPL is to ensure that your software, or bits of it, aren't used to support software which doesn't respect the end user's freedom. If you believe that freedom should be the default for everyone and that nonfree software is only a bad thing, this approach is reasonable. Why is this never brought up in these threads? Why is it always about "if you use my software, you must give back!" when the point of freedom is that you're not FORCED to give back?
>>52917142 >because Apple and Microsoft can spend hundreds of millions of dollars advertising their rebranded copy of your code. So? Am I entitled to their marketing dollars too?
If we both had an identical lemonade stand, and you advertised the shit out of yours, charged a higher price and turned out to be successful, would I be entitled to your profits? Since we're selling the same product and people are dumb?
>>52917893 >If we both had an identical lemonade stand, and you advertised the shit out of yours, charged a higher price and turned out to be successful, would I be entitled to your profits? >Since we're selling the same product and people are dumb?
Tell the truth. They're not selling their own lemonade, they're selling YOUR lemonade.
Literally taking it from your stand and then reselling it at theirs.
Maybe they added something to it. Maybe not. But you're not even allowed to try to find out, because they said "our lemonade is proprietary", and reverse-engineering it even just out of curiosity would be grounds for them to sue you into financial ruin.
All the GPL would do in this case is require them to also provide the recipe to their paying customers if they request it.
>>52916469 >why it's unreasonable to ask that the corporations who are using other people's code in the first place share what they did they with it? Because freedom would be to let them not do that if they don't want to
>>52918067 I suppose you think it's perfectly OK that if a corporation figures out how to suck all the oxygen out of the atmosphere, they should be able to sell it back to everyone, and only the people who pay their ransom should get to live, huh?
Corporations exist to serve people. Not the other way around. Therefore, whenever there is a conflict between the freedoms of the people and those of a corporation, the freedoms of the people must be the paramount consideration.
And the exact issue here is that you're NOT buying a product if you're paying for proprietary software.
You're buying a license to USE the product, not the product itself.
If you buy GPL'd software, then you're actually buying a copy of the software... Because you get the source code, and you can do whatever the fuck you want to do with your copy of that source code... (Except infringe on anyone else's freedoms by using it in a proprietary product)
>>52918098 The GPL is a viral licence. You must pass on the same freedoms that you got given to people you give the software to.
It's like dealing in Lemonade. If I sell you GPL Lemonade (with the recipe) and you resell it, you have to let your customers themselves resell the lemonade you sold them (or give the customers the recipe if they ask).
It's hardly the end of freedom if the only freedom you lose is the freedom to not pass on the same freedom.
>>52909267 >Red Hat doesn't make shit off of other people's work >neither does Canonical
The BSD license allows you to retain control over your own work, or research. This includes your ability to monetize it, or make it close sourced in the future if you so desire. It's yours, and you have every right to hold onto it.
GPL restricts what you can do with your own work. You run the risk of losing control of later developmental direction as well. Meanwhile big players like Redhat are raking in profits. If they take enough interest in your software, they can hijack development from you, and the GPL allows the to, by taking away your ability to claim ownership of your code if you decide that you want to.
GPL favors big time developers and end users. BSD favors small time developers and researchers. There's a very good reason why these big corporations have fully embraced GPL rather than BSD, and that is because it's UN their best interests to.
>>52918008 For free is not as in freedom, it can also means you have no choice but to do it for free as in slavery. One can get fooled on how a license operates.
Also, don't forget a lot of business make dollars from "contributions", offering crapware in exchange and then selling the real deal. That is why when stronger the GPL, the betterment of our rights and freedoms over the final product. And don't get me started as how a vendor lock-in can happen with licenses like BSD.
>>52918094 >End users only care about if the product works 1. This is one of the problems with calling it "open source" instead of "free software:" open source is about source code, which is for developers and not users; free software is about freedom with your software, not just the source. 2. Not every end user has given up on software freedom, but not every end user knows about the issue of software freedom. You can thank the "open source" camp for this as well
>>52918142 >Meanwhile big players like Redhat are raking in profits. If they take enough interest in your software, they can hijack development from you, and the GPL allows the to, by taking away your ability to claim ownership of your code if you decide that you want to.
Just no. You always own YOUR COPY of the software. What Red Hat do with THEIR COPY is literally their business... If they continue to develop it, that's A-OK... And their customers get to do the same thing in turn, if they wish.
There is no way for Red Hat to prevent you from continuing to develop YOUR COPY of the GPL'd software. Whether or not you're able to monetize that effectively is up to you... But there's absolutely nothing Red Hat can do to stop you in that regard.
>>52918136 >I suppose you think it's perfectly OK that if a corporation figures out how to suck all the oxygen out of the atmosphere, they should be able to sell it back to everyone, and only the people who pay their ransom should get to live, huh? Haha what kind of shitty analogy is that ?
>You're buying a license to USE the product, not the product itself. The product is a license to use their software, and it's a perfectly valid thing to be sold. If you want to buy the software source code itself then that's fine, there are probably other corporations who will let you do that.
I think there is room for both BSD and GPL, and the only people who truly disrespect your freedom are the ones who want to kill either
>>52909396 "GPL fans said the great problem we would face is that companies would take our BSD code, modify it, and not give back.
Nope—the great problem we face is that people would wrap the GPL around our code, and lock us out in the same way that these supposed companies would lock us out. Just like the Linux community, we have many companies giving us code back, all the time. But once the code is GPL'd, we cannot get it back." ~~ Theo De Raadt
Why would the company use GPL? If they put money on it and make it a commercial product, why the fuck would they give away the recipe?
If YOU choose to write free software, you are aware that any money someone might possibly make on top of it is not yours. If you're not financially interested in your code and let it roaming through the internet, it's obvious someone will change something and sell.
>>52918086 >You aren't asking the corporation to stick their dicks in a fishtank or give away free money to the poor. They are indeed throwing away money You're basically saying capitalism is removing the freedom of others, as you've broken it down to elsewhere ITT
>>52918578 >You're basically saying capitalism is removing the freedom of others
No. With any other product you can buy, you can fuck with it. You can open it up and look inside it to see what makes it work. You can modify it, you can sell it to someone else, etc.
Proprietary code is about removing freedom from others, not capitalism. You can write free (as in freedom) software and charge money for it... All the GPL does is make sure that you're actually selling someone a copy of the software, that they can "open up and look inside" (source code) or modify, or resell to someone else, like any other product.
GPL makes sure that you have the freedom to do with your software what you can do with anything else you own.
Proprietary software is all about taking those freedoms away from you.
BSD license is bad because it allows software that was once free (as in freedom) to become proprietary.
>>52918668 >write software >sell it to one person >now that person that can unlimited copies of it and sell it without ever needing to write any software Can you seriously not see what's wrong with this ?
>>52909015 Don't believe this image. GPL consumes all of your programming work if you include any GPL licensed code. If you don't want to expose your valuable knowledge as soon as you commercially release something with the risk of being sued, don't use GPL. GPL is altruistic but not good if you need coding to survive.
>BSD: do what fsck you want just don't sue me if it breaks your sh!t >GPL: [laundry list of stipulations if you modify my code]
I don't think you understand what freedom is. BSD is good license if all you want is to cover your butt and give users freedom to do whatever they want. GPL is best if you want ensure your programs evolve over time - anyone makes mods has to contribute back to the public.
>>52917995 >they're selling YOUR lemonade. But it's not mine, it's free like the sun, for anybody to take it.
>Why are you so vehemently against that? Ideologically? Because it's retarded. That's not freedom, it's an extensive licence agreement, or a contract, saying "you can use mine as long as I can use everything that's yours".
It's the embodiment of entitlement. Entitlement that even if you couldn't sell your recipe to a single person, and somebody modifies it and starts selling like hot cakes, somehow you're entitled to the modified one.
GPL fails to understand a very simple premise: If a piece of code is free, and a modified version isn't, and people pay and agree to the license of the modified piece, they're paying (and agreeing to the terms) for the modifications *only*.
If you don't want that, just impose restrictions and copyright and lengthy licensing terms, like the GPL. But stop calling it free software.
Pragmatically? GPL is not viable. It's viral and thus it rules out something like 90% of the collective professional programmer brain, since they're employed by companies and no companies can touch anything GPL.
And thus they stall progress (commercial software must reinvent the wheel) and stiffle the creation of more free software. Because a company using a free codebase, is in its interest to commit upstream all the parts *except* their moneymaker, so as to benefit from open source development. We've seen that numerous times, clang is one example of such a case, it managed in half a decade to surpass 30 years of gcc development.
GPLtards think that a company would just use GPL and open source their product if there was no other solution. Truth is, if a company's business model relies in at least some parts being proprietary, they'll just avoid GPL like the plague. They could be willing to give back improvements to the code that don't negate their core moneymaker, but they can't do that with GPL, it's all or nothing, aka less free software.
>>52918696 >create recipe >sell it to one person >now that one person can make unlimited quantities of your delicious cake and sell it without ever needing to invent their own cake entirely from scratch
>>52918836 >GPL is not about freedom, plurality etc., it's about driving commercial software to extinction. >But instead of doing that by providing better software to outclass the commercial one, it creates a layer of incompatibility.
It's not about driving commercial software to extinction. Proprietary software, sure... But only if you use GPL'd code.
You can't have it both ways.
You want the freedom to use GPL'd code in your own product? You got it. That's guaranteed by the GPL.
You want to take away that freedom from everyone else who comes after you? Fuck you, and you can't use GPL'd code if you want to do that.
If you really think you can make better code than the stuff that's GPL'd, then go ahead and do it. Put your money where your mouth is, and spend a shitload of time and effort reinventing the wheel because you're an asshole who doesn't want to give others the same benefit that you yourself get from GPL'd code.
>>52918836 >RHEL isn't commercial >fucking ubuntu isn't commercial >b-but those don't count because Red Hat and Canonical both profit from their respective products. They are commercial products. >b-but you can copy and sell them yourself! This doesn't disqualifying them from being commercial software.
>>52919022 >GPL fails to understand a very simple premise: If a piece of code is free, and a modified version isn't, and people pay and agree to the license of the modified piece, they're paying (and agreeing to the terms) for the modifications *only*.
But that's wrong you retard. How about you sell your modifications on their own, without the inclusion of the GPL'd code instead, then?
What's that? You don't have a viable product without the GPL'd code? Why not? Too shitty a programmer to reimplement the same functionality using your own code?
>And thus they stall progress (commercial software must reinvent the wheel) and stiffle the creation of more free software.
No, they don't HAVE to reinvent the wheel. The choice is theirs; use the wheel that's already there, and build something on top of it, that others can then build on top of too... OR you can go the proprietary route.
How the fuck can you possibly complain "wahhh, I wanna use other people's free code and make money from it, but it's not fair if people want to use MY code!"
YOU sir, and proprietary software, are the embodiment of entitlement.
>>52919434 >And yet Red Hat is a hugely successful company, proving that GPL'd code CAN be commercially successful. We all know about redhat, they never stop being namedropped Support work is a different industry to making money from software, and literally depends on software imperfection Providing an entire OS for businesses is also better vantage point than being a normal person with some little intellectual property
>>52919668 >literally depends on imperfection So.. it relies on something not being perfect? That sounds pretty reliable to me :^) This reply chain also forgets about hosting, which is something that can't be copy-pasted with 4 clicks.
>>52919486 You can get away with violation of any code or law, murder, genocide.
If there's a suspicion that your closed source software uses parts of code released under a GPL license and your software gets attention of the FSF you will have problems.
FSF gets like a million bucks a year in donations and all of that goes to a group of lawyers specialised in software license abuse and patent trolling. Nowadays they literally do nothing else but provide lawyers to parties that are "hurt" by GPL violations.
So (i'm talking pure theory here) you're taken to the court, your code is audited for GPL licensed code, GPL licensed is found and you loose the case.
>>52919539 >Theoretically get away with murder is really hard, you have cameras all over the place, witnesses and yadda yadda yadda
but in closed source, if you think about it, its so easy... lets say:
>Theoretically i took your GPL code, modified it a bit so it would be really hard to distinguish my(your) modified code from yours... then finally i make it closed source... now you have no way to know/find out your code, or accuse/prove me a "stealer"
GPL wont protect your code, if i >Theoretically again, just play smart and dont tell me you can find out, its almos-to-fully-impossible without source code to prove or know anything SO...
>>52919150 >It's not about driving commercial software to extinction. Proprietary software Commercial software can only be proprietary.
Red Hat et al don't sell commercial software, they sell commercial support. They're product is support and counselling, not software.
You can't sell GPL software commercially. The edge case "you sell it to one person for a huge sum, and then they can redistribute freely" is retarded.
In that sense, I can also buy Photoshop, Office, SPSS etc. code for a huge sum, and then redistribute it, so what's so special about GPL software bought once for a huge sum?
>You want to take away that freedom from everyone else who comes after you? No, I want the freedom to do whatever I want with *my* code. Your code is free, it's a starting point, a given. It was your decision to be so, cause you wanted it to be free. If you don't want it to be considered a given and a starting point, stop calling it free.
>>52919312 >How about you sell your modifications on their own, without the inclusion of the GPL'd code instead, then? That's what I'm doing. But why without the GPL code? GPL code belongs to the public and is free and a given.
You don't want it to be so? Congrats, you created a proprietary license (GPL) which affords some extra liberties with regards to source code.
>>52919486 >can someone do that and get away with it? since the end product is closed source? I do something else.
I relicense GPL code as BSD after some very slight modifications, and then upload it to a couple "project sites" on my servers, using a spoofed timestamp and creation date and all.
Then, I use it in proprietary, and if someone finds out and complains (extremely rare), I point to (my) project site, where it appears as BSD licensed code.
Then the burden's on them to solve the chicken and egg problem, proving which came first, the actual GPL code, or maybe mine (with the spoofed timestamps and all) came first and someone wrapped in in GPL.
Defenders of BSD licenses fail to realize that making your code GPL does not prevent the copyright holder from licensing it under a different license later, or close-sourcing it entirely.
If I write some code on my own time. I hold the copyright to that code entirely (until someone else starts contributing as well). If I license that code under GPL for others to use, then a company can ask me to sell them the code under a different license as well.
Licensing does not surpass copyright. License your code under GPL publicly, and if a company wants to use it without the copyleft restrictions, you can sell it to them under a different license.
>>52921440 GPL supporter here but not as educated as I should be about this debate If I contribute to a GPL project, and then find out about a similar BSD-licensed project, can I add the contribution I already made to the BSD project under the BSD license, or does it have to be GPL in all cases?
>>52921751 dual licensing is fine. they just can't ever say "we're not using gpl anymore so all existing gpl versions are now illegal and violate our propriatary licence" if you have a copy of the gpl version, it still stands even if the cw holder doesn't want it to anymore.
>>52921822 I was thinking of going into law, I think I'd be good at it but obviously I wouldn't know until I try it. How can I tell if I have the right kind of brain for it, and would you say it's worth it if I'm also a good programmer?
>>52921867 Different types of law entail completely different things. A friend of mine is a criminal defense attorney, and other than the fundamentals, his kind of work is completely different from mine. He deals with trying to make sure people get due process when they're committed of a crime, and I deal with preventing unforeseen lawsuits between companies.
If you want to become a lawyer, make sure you know specifically which field you want to go into. It's not fun trying to decide on that later in your education.
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5 If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.