riddle me this...

You release under GPL in order to keep it free.
If you release it without any license, anyone would be able to get that code, license it under a restrictive license and make it illegal to distribute the code for free (even the first one that was released unlicensed, albeit being released first).

>>59215479

i dont know much about law but that surely isn't a real problem. what is 'prior art'.

>>59215442
Why are license important? Because companies would clone your code, patent it and sue you for copyright infrigement

>>59215491
Everyone could take your Code, compile a program, slap a Logo onto it and sell it for Money.

We only need the freedom our dear leader says so
Stop questioning him or he'll send you to the GNU/Gulag or how he's recently taken to call it, GNU plus Gulag. There is a gulag, and you're going to it, but it's just a small component of the punishment you're going to experience for not blindly following st ignucious rule

>>59215442
Code published without any license defaults to the standard that the publisher is the owner/creator of said code. Having a license that allows users to add to the code, work on it, adjust it, allows the program to be free.

>Stallman prefers Pepsi over Coca-Cola, which he refuses to drink.
What a fag.

>>59215491
>what is 'prior art'.
Prior art doesn't apply to copyrights at all, only patents.

You're right, you don't know much about law.

>>59215442
>if the software was TRULY free... it would just release, without any license. the fact you need to be on a GPL to be 'free' software is a limitation on the 'freedom' of the software in and of itself.
No. What defines it as free is wheter or not it follows all of the four essential freedoms, which software under the GPL does (would be kind of stupid if it didn't); the GPL only makes sure no one uses your software and then takes one of the freedoms away.