>h-here you go, feel free to sell my hard work >n-no,

Basically, you license your shit as MIT/BSD if you want any realistic chance of large companies using your software at all.

Most companies will stay away from all GPL/LGPL software like the plague because they're not interested in contributing to free software and they just want to save money by having some MIT cuck write their entire software stack for them.

>cuck this cuck that

Grow up.

>cuck
You're not a software dev, You're a child.

>>55801047
>butthurt cuck
keep at it goy

>>55801080
this

you wouldn't have written anything useful anyway you pathetic mouthshitter

>>55800951
>I'm going to regurgitate memes trying desperately to "belong" to an anonymous message board community

Holy shit go away and grow a fucking personality.

>>55800951
gnu is cuck license
either be a non-cuck and sell your fucking software, or be a great person and allow non-cucks to use your shit

cuck

>>55801085
see
>>55801047

>>55800951
If you're so concerned about not being a cuck why even let people tamper with or use your code in the first place?

>>55800951
That's the whole point of MIT license is to give it away.
Otherwise keep it proprietary and sell it yourself.

If you got a large company using your shit you could get job offers or more people forking and contributing to your project. All that matters in the tech field is your skills and recognition not your shitty licensing.

>>55801313
this is a joke right?

nobody is going to call you they're just gonna use your open source library in their proprietary software and not give you credit
the MIT license gives them the right to not credit you

>>55800951
Fuck that noise. Compile a binary and sell that shit.

I don't work for free.

>>55801424
kys

>have a website with images
>unironically have a credits page with many thousands of rows where people are credited for the images on my website
Creative Commons is great.

>>55800951
>using the MIT (or Apache) License instead of glorious GPL v2/v3
calm your tits, nobody's going to care about your fizzbuzz

>>55801448
Maybe, but I'm taking you with me.

And I get paid for my work, so maybe you want to reconsider what you're doing with your life...

>>55800951
you forgot BSD

>>55801354
Code is never done.
OpenSSL was forked from SSLeay which was contributed by only 2 people. OpenSSL is one of the most popular crypto libraries now. eay aka Eric A. Young went off to join the RSA Corporation.

Anyone can download OpenSSL and use it for free in anything, including people like Google or your local bank. Because OpenSSL and SSLeay are licensed without GPL.

Get a job if you want money. If you program as a hobby you already spent the time. Why should you care who you benefit by sharing it, or limit it. It's quite selfish and immature to say who can use it for what, and you aren't allowed to make any money off of it.

>>55800951
>Notice that this project took a considerable amount of work and sacrifice of my free time and the reason I give it for free (even for commercial use) is so when you become rich and wealthy you don't forget about us open-source creatures of the night. Cheers!

fucking Mit licensing faggots should just shut the fuck up or use gpl like any sane person would.

>>55802466
Most MIT licensed products are released by professional employed programmers. You poor GPL commoners are welcome to use it for free as well. If you ever get out of the basement and start your own buisness you are welcome to profit off of successful works.

>>55800951
(((GPL))) is a kike license.

Can anyone explain to me how do i license something i just add a file saying its using the MIT license?, do i have to pay someone? how the fuck do i license software and hardware??

>>55800951
>>n-no, I don't need any credit or shares of the profits
well all you'd get is credit anyway.
no sane company would pay to use a gpl licensed thing
so why are you being autistic about it

>>55800951
if the goal of my software is to educate or better help others as well as function, why do I give a fuck if some pajeet is taking code snippets out of it to save time on some irrelevant enterprise(TM) software? hobbies are for yourself, not just your ego (or dumb political movements)

>>55802781
Licensing software is as simple as writing the code and then adding a file/puting a notice in each file of the project saying that you're the author and it's distributed under X license

not sure about hardware

>>55800951
>cuck
Stopped reading. Read a book, you young man. You should be ashamed.

>>55800951
sorry just can't get passed "cuck" m8
it's 2016 be a little mature, huh?
post again in a few hours after you've thought about what youve done

>>55802849
however if i upload the software along the license on github, theres no way to stop anyone from downloading and deleting that file while claiming the software as his own, so it kind of doest not make any sense

>>55802372
SSL is cracked wide open you should be using TLS.

>>55802664
>You poor GPL commoners
please stop meming
the best free software is under the GPL umbrella
mit is just a recycle bin for academia to dump code into

>>55800951
Uh, excuse me, but what does cuckoldry have to do with this discussion exactly?
Cuckoldry play is a completely valid sexual orientation and there's really no reason to bring it up unless it's pertinent.

>>55800951
>KEK
Yeah, okay, whatever "man." Bet you feel real big. Come back after you're underaged, huh?

LGPL is objectively the best licence.

>>55801011
I stay away from gpl for all sorts of projects because I don't want some mere library I just use for stupid shit like reading a qr code, generating a pdf or accessing a db to start telling me what I can and can't do with the project *I* built (of which the library is just one tiny part like a cog in a machine)

Maybe mit and such is too loose but gpl is a fucking pain in the ass and just as bad on the other end of the spectrum.

>>55800951
Hey, you know what I think is real "cucking"? Calling something a cuck when it's not, okay? Just grow up!

File: 1439707211544.jpg (45KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 400x300px

>>55802932
>y-you can share y-your s-source too
>BUT only if you f-feel like it though... senpai!
>don't take it the wrong way!!

>>55802881
OpenSSL library implements TLS 1.2. Do some homework OpenSSL is just a library name.

>>55802881
http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/5126/whats-the-difference-between-ssl-tls-and-https

here's your homework assignment.

>n-no, I don't need any credit
MIT, 3-BSD, and Apache all require giving you credit.

>or shares of the profits
GPL (any version) does not entitle you to profits. In fact, someone can sell your product as is without giving you any money for it.

>Give me one good reason why I should cuck myself by using the MIT (or Apache) License instead of glorious GPL v2/v3

Actually, based on your priorities, you would be better off using a proprietary software license, Anon.

>>55802878

>there's no way to stop anyone from downloading and deleting that file while claiming the software as his own

They would have a hard time arguing that the project was their own, since they would have no version of the software that was earlier than your upload of it onto Github. Moreover, if they were to openly claim that they wrote it, they would be violating the terms of your license, which they agreed to implicitly when they downloaded your files, and you could sue them for copyright infringement. And it would be the only known case of someone actually breaking the fucking MIT license and getting sued over it.

Although in all seriousness, nobody actually does this, Anon. There's a reason even Microsoft can trust the MIT license for their .NET Framework.

>>55802988
you gotta turn my software into hardware if you know what i mean

>>55803636
Exactly, GPL is a parasitic kike license. It's going to be banned when the kikes are gone.

>>55803749
A-are you working on my firmware right now...?

>>55800951
are you the insane anti BSD fag that pretends he doesn't do this every day

and when someone proved that you do this every day with an archive link you stopped posting for weeks?

>>55803797
You're a fucking faggot and gay as fuck off you listen to (((stallman)))

>>55803764
i'm gonna put my rootkit in your backdoor ;)

>>55803819
what

if anything im on the BSD side

>>55803835
Good, you're not a cuck. If you do use GPL, kill yourself fags.

>>55803822
Good luck getting past my firewall. you fucking nerd.

>>55802988
>>55803749
>>55803764
>>55803822
>>55803959
Kill yourself you fucking animefags.

Why do people care so much about what licenses other people use? You can create your own if you want to specify how your code/program can be used/distributed.

>>55803959
Do you call it a fire wall because it burns for the guys port days after going in?

>>55803990
because how the hell would you know if your license is legally valid at all

>>55803990
Because GPL is the cancer killing software

>>55804025
Because you wrote it, making it automatically copyrighted to you and thus letting you dictate how others may use it.

>>55804070
it can still be thrown away in court

the WTFPL for example

What's the point of software licenses?

The party with the most lawyers always wins.
If, for example, oracle decided to steal my LGPL library, I would never win.

>>55804111
Fucking kikes! Fuck you stallman! This is all your fault!

>>55804079
>WTFPL
The point of that license is to give your code absolutely no protection. Am I missing something here?

>>55804111

An unlicensed program is assumed to be all rights reserved. That is to say, nobody can use it for any purpose.

Also, the law is not so flexible that in any situation, you can throw enough lawyers at the problem and it'll produce a valid argument in court.

>>55804312
>Also, the law is not so flexible that in any situation, you can throw enough lawyers at the problem and it'll produce a valid argument in court.

Yes, but you don't have to be right, you just have to have more money than the opposition.
By stalling the case and repeatedly appealing decisions and drawing out the legal battle until the opponent is bankrupt, you can win a case against any individual.

>>55804049
How? Any proprietary software company wouldn't use other people's code if they actually care about licenses, or they'll just steal whatever code they want. No one can see the source anyway, and reverse-engineering is illegal, so why would they care?

>>55804384
>reverse engineering is illegal
Looking at the assembler output is not.
And if they took non-trivial portions of your software project, you can compile it yourself and find instances of it in their executable with grep.

>>55800951
>GPL v2/v3
communists use it
capitalists just reverse engineer your open source code without giving you the credit

>MIT
communists may or may not use it
capitalists use it while giving you the credit

>>55800951
>Builds my software "A"
>Oh, this library "B" is quite nice and I might get some use for it. I'll use it.
>Neat I can choose my license according to what I consider the most appropriate.

>Oh, there's this function in "C", a program that is under the GPL license. I guess I can use it to ...
>LET ME INTERJECT FOR A MOMENT !
>YOU USED CODE UNDER THE GPL LICENSE, DIDN'T YOU???
>HENCE, I, GNU/RMS, AM FORCING YOU TO CHANGE YOUR PROJECT "B" LICENSE TO GPL AS WELL
>FOR YOUR FREEDOM
>I'LL ALSO REQUIRE YOU TO CHANGE THE LICENSE OF THE LIBRARY "A" TO THE GPL LICENSE AS WELL, REGARDLESS THE LICENSE CHOSEN BY ITS ORIGINAL AUTHOR
>FOR YOUR FREEDOM

>>55804519
i have a feeling most GPL users don't actually read or know what the license does

they just hear it's "more free" so they automatically think that's good and they use it

>>55804519
That can't happen. You'll either have to change the license or discontinue distribution until you learn to write your own damn code if you're making proprietary software.

>>55804571
It's very simple.
If you include my software in your project, you must make the entire project conform to the same license, effectively giving other people the same software freedoms that I gave you when you took my software.
This only applies if you intend to publicly distribute this software.

I think that's fair.

File: 1450799627512.jpg (12KB, 199x253px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 199x253px

>>55804519
>include loads of GPL shit in my project
>don't credit any of it
>compile all my code into one compressed and encrypted static-linked library
>sell it for mad dosh
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NheZ_hLCSx0

>>55804620
freedom is taking away other's freedom according to GPL people

>>55804571
I guess they're like these brexit people that started googling "What's the UE?" after they chose to abandon it.

>>55804585
Who said anything about proprietary code?
I was implying that if I use "some code" under GPL, I am forced to also also publish under it, regardless what license I see fit. (I usually do under MIT because I assume people are stealing anyway and MIT license is quite chill if people want to fork my stuff)

>>55804641
In order to have freedom, you must make give up some liberties to prevent others from taking away your freedoms.

What you're arguing is that I should be able to deprive other people of their freedoms.

Also this >>55804639
I used to be an intern in a startup and no one gave a shit about copypasting github and the like without even mentioning it was ripped.

>>55804639
I didn't know Allwinner lurked /g/, welcome.

>>55804665
>Who said anything about proprietary code?
I think I missed the point of this thread. Is it people crying that they can't use other people's code however they want or just criticizing GPL?

>>55804420
You'll still have to sue a company. Good luck paying a lawyer and court costs with all the money you made releasing your source-code for free.

>>55804801
FSF sues them for you

>>55804746
MIT license is quite chill basically, it doesn't forbid you to take the code, make it yours, change the license or whatever, and sell it.

OP calls people who use MIT license cucks and shills the GPL license.

However, the GPL license forces you to also publish ALL your work under the GPL. Never mind if there's some code that's not from you, GPL takes it and makes it theirs (except if it's dynamically linked).

That's why people call the GPL license viral and cancerous (not in the 4chan meaning), because once it's there, it propagates everywhere it can.

They say it's for ethic, freedom whatever, but my view is that it's for pride.
My point is the Linux vs. gnu/linux argument.
>Linux distributions are using the Linux kernel and tools from the GNU guys
>Hence everything was published under the GPL license
>"B-But you used our work! That's not fair, despite you publishing under our license's agreement. We decide that you should call it GNU/Linux, you should mention US in your project !"

See what I mean.

>>55804902
GNU is a full operating system.
Linux is just the kernel.

File: Selection_001.png (45KB, 635x305px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 635x305px

What did he mean by this?

>>55804933
>GNU is a full operating system.
>no kernel
can you fuck off already

>>55800951
>Massachusetts
>blue state
>being surprised they cuck themselves

>>55804969
You can have a Linux kernel without a GNU userland, but a kernel by itself is not an operating system.

Calling the entirety of a GNU/Linux distribution "Linux" is malicious and spiteful.

>>55804933
Do you even know what you're talking about or do you just recite (erroneously) the interruption pasta?

History class for you.
>UNIX
>AT&T and Bell Lab are fighting to know who owns UNIX
>Stallman can't get his printer to work and decide that everyting shoul be free.
>He and his friends make the GNU project.
>The GNU project reimplements UNIX tools, and a kernel, called Hurd. But it's shit and the project can't take off.
On the other side of the ocean
>Linus takes an OS class
>His project is to make a better version of Minix.
>He decides to publish it online and continue the project.

>The kernel developed by Linus and his online friends is now called Linux
>A Linux distribution is made using the Linus kernel and some tools from the GNU project.
>It becomes famous and GNU/Hurd is seen as a failure

>RMS is butthurt and decides he will meme his share of fame.

File: 1366636958610.jpg (89KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 800x600px

>>55803524

savage

>>55805021
>spiteful
exactly, and i'm doing it to piss off you autists

god i hope some day distros just drop the GNU coreutils and GCC

>>55805106
>god i hope some day distros just drop the GNU coreutils and GCC

Linux requires gcc and glibc to compile, so no, that won't be happening any time soon.

>>55805129
>Linux requires gcc and glibc to compile
they're actually making efforts towards removing that requirement, you know

there's way less in-line assembly in it than before

>>55800951
None, just sell your closed shit, don't be a cuck

>>55805106
Take a look at android

Also, clang is a good alternative. At least it gives clearer error messages than gcc

>>55805195
oh yeah, there's also the fact that GCC itself is a fucking mess because stallman is an extremist retard, i forgot about that

people are getting really sick of his shit

File: 1468778312259.jpg (119KB, 1000x568px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 1000x568px

>>55805064

>>55805214
I don't know, I'm not into compilers so I can't get to objectively compare the performances.
I still use gcc in various occasions, such as when I compile a kernel or code from a group project (because I don't want to be the special snowflake that's too good for gcc).

But I don't like stallman very much.

>>55805129
>Linux requires gcc and glibc to compile
no it doesnt
you can compile with clang (maybe even tinycc, who knows) and several different libc's exist like uclibc and musl

>>55804962
he is trying to get laid

>>55804962
Kek

What's the difference between bsd and mit licenses?

What do you people think of the MPL license?

>>55805886
>>>/mlp/

>>55806162
I don't get it

>>55806162
dyslexia must be a real bitch.