>endorses free software >'bsd is a cuck license'

>>58854581
Shoo shoo pajeet, go find a loo.

>>58854581
BSD/MIT are acceptable licenses for smaller or less important projects.

Unfortunately with larger projects, the only good way to keep proprietary companies from "poisoning the well" is to use a copyleft license such as GPL.

GPL is literal cancer

>>58854625
that worked really well for linux and redhat

>>58854625
You can't stop someone from taking GPL code and selling it proprietary or making profit off your work.

>>58854855
Oh but you can.

>>58854855
richardu_stalmanu_autistic_screeching.fedora.tar.bz2

>claims he's not a cuck
>cares about licenses at all

>>58854855
GPL is not intended to stop anyone from making profit. Free as in freedom not as in price. Also, how do you think it is possible for someone to sell GPL code as proprietary?

>>58855055
When I say profit, I mean forking a project someone worked on and making money off their work.

>>58854625
Didn't know you made the rules of the Internet, faggot.

What does /g/ think of licenses that work as a middleman like mpl?

It is though.
Sometimes it's a desirable trait.
Still a cuckold license.

>>58855090
Why would someone buy a fork of open-source project?

>>58855258
meme public license

Why did cuck ever get unfiltered? Hiroshimoot needs to get on that shit.

>>58854581
>take gpl project
>turn into proprietary project
>obfuscate sources as with all proprietary software
>???
profit

>>58855296
Put a nice graphical shell on an open source CLI application, call it all your own, advertise, sell, profit. Open source projects do very little marketing, so it's not hard to convince people your product is the only one.

Theoretically, if someone quietly copied open source code and turned it into closed source without telling anyone. What then?

Both GPL and BSD Licenses are useless because you can't prove they stole the code because closed source cannot be legally audited without proof.

>>58856642
At least with the BSD license there isn't really a reason to steal code, you're free to use it, modify it, and release it as closed source, just give some credit. If you can't follow this license then you're a fucking monster.

>>58856681
But isn't that a major flaw in open source? Some asshole takes all your hard work, slaps his name on it, compiles it and sells it as his own.

What remedy do you have? Without knowing or auditing, you can never tell if someone violated the license. You would need a court order and some really good evidence.

Why would I ever allow my code to be open source? It is literally cucking yourself in the long run.

>>58856681
Programmers don't even bother doing that. They think it's equivalent to public domain or don't know what a license is.

I have a fucking virus on my computer and I'm just sitting here on 4chan cause i'm a fucking degenerate

>>58856642
>closed source cannot be legally audited
>what is reverse engineering
It's legal for some extent.

>>58854625
SystemAIDS is a 100% top-down corporate well poisoning attempt. Your license didn't do shit to prevent that.

>>58858871
probably the same fucking idiot that goes into the BSD threads to complain that we don't have systemd

>>58858871
You can fork it you retard

>>58859340
>forking something that's as obfuscated as redhat stuff