Why do BSD licenses trigger GNUggers?

>>60669741
Cause it's literally digital cuckoldry

File: wojak-crying-bsd-gnu.png (282KB, 626x750px) Image search: [Google]

282KB, 626x750px

>>60669741
It's the other way around memeboi.

>>60669741
BSD license=unpaid apple dev

>>60669794
And now Sony's too.

>>60669760
>>60669776
>>60669794
I still don't get it

>>60669853
It's just like your wife's pussy, you see.

>>60669741
We let you do something important with it and next thing you know stupid companies have taken the source and filled it with botnet. (past example bsd -> mac os, future example riscV -> ???)

>>60669927
FreeBSD → PS4

>>60669927
yet BSD still exists

it's almost like people can take the source code and do anything they want with it... whoa...

>>60669853
read the gnu license, its basically "steal this code" gnu public license v3 protects you from anything legally

>>60669970
No one said it shouldn't exist. Cuckoldry porn also exits, mind you.

Permissive licenses like BSD are compatible with proprietary software which is the part that bothers them. "Copyfree" license fags are equally annoyed by GPL though because it prevents them from incorporating derivative works back into their original project.

>>60670005
so does the BSD license you fucking moron

What's the one thay says you can use it in libre and gratis distributions but if it or any of its children are ever to be used unfreely they have to get the original author's consent?

>>60669760
*philanthropy

>>60670047
Not quite that, but is the GPL. BSD let's anyone redistribute it in proprietary form.

>>60670047
No such license exists, or even makes sense. They'd have to trace it back to you and ask (pay?) you to rerelease it to them under a differet license.

>GPL: If you want to use our ingredients for no monetary cost, be sure to bring whatever you cook with it to the feast

>BSD: If you want use our ingredients for no monetary cost and sell whatever you cook, that's okay. You don't even have to gives us crumbs.

>>60669741

it's literally "Hi, I am going to take your children, share them with my friends and then give them back."

>>60670105
Both wrong.

>>60670142
What's the point of lying? The information is out there.

>>60670035
i meant to write "read the bsd licence".

>>60670179
and you have horrible reading comprehension

>>60669741
It doesn't trigger non-NEETs.

GPL and Linux are THE reason why there is so much corporate interest in open source these days, even if it's under non-GPL licenses. Companies were blind to the advantages of open source until they legally dragged into it, kicking and screaming, by the massive success of Linux, and thus the GPL, and thus copyleft.

These days, the license you release software under can be BSD, GPL, MIT, whatever you prefer, just so long as it's a common license and not a pain in the ass to integrate with any of the usual suspects.

>>60669853
>GNU
sure you can fuck my wife but the child is mine

>BSDcuck
sure you can fuck my wife and the child is yours

>>60669741

they don't because the BDD License is GPL compatible :)

>>60670258
I think I'd prefer BSD there. Chilluns be expensive.

File: IMG_20170209_012742.jpg (140KB, 512x1280px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 512x1280px

>>60669741

They don't. We can always use their software whenever we want.

We think they're dumb because companies cuck them into developing shit for free with no obligation to contribute anything back. At least the GPL gives free software developers advantages.

>>60670183

wait kek are you >>60670175 too? you make two rather large typos and then insult some other guy's reading comprehension?

(not that other poster either)

>>60670359
ESL detected

>>60670383
ever notice that all the anti-BSD shills are ESLs?

really makes you think

>>60670292
>that linus quote

I remember that talk. He's absolutely right as always. He's right about GPLv2 being the best version, too.

GPL doesn't guarantee protection from infringement. It's difficult to prove that a particular piece of software infringes on your copyright in the first place and even if you prove it you still need to hire a lawyer to actually fight the case. If chinks are infringing on your copyright then none of that matters anyway because you wont be able to sue them. China don't care.

>>60670400
Copyleft isn't magic fairy dust. What it does give you is legal avenues to pursue infringement. What else could you reasonably ask for?

China is a red herring because it's fucking china and they don't give a shit about our intellectual property no matter how you release it - or even if you don't. But their internet is so closed off that you're likely never notice the difference.

>>60670400
What license protects one from infringement?

>>60670400
Retroarch developers have successfully proven that a bunch of people were attempting to sell emulators whose license was non-commercial. It led to the project's funding being pulled.

Chinks are a completely different history. You have no recourse against them even if you're a billion dollar company.

>>60670292
dayumn

>>60670397
https://youtu.be/5PmHRSeA2c8?t=47m20s

Based Linus.

He talks about a lot of interesting stuff such as distro binary compatibility. Watching the entire talk is recommended

>>60670450
Copyleft works for large firms that can afford a legal department with people constantly looking for possible infringers but small time devs can't really afford to do that. The legal crap just becomes a distraction.

>>60670396
>anti-BSD shills
lol, who would pay them? The FSF?

>>60670577
redhat or the NSA

reminder that openbsd had no NSA exploits afaik

>>60670271
True, and if you make a superior baby, it should be allowed to survive. That way, inferior babies don't get to exist simply because of restrictive software licenses.

A free software baby has more freedom to grow and perhaps create new babies.

>>60670589
The smart bet is redhat. NSA is too busy jerking it to the CP hoard they keep for reference purposes and arguing with the CIA and ISA over who gets to spy on whom.

>>60670653
However, refuting my own point here, BSD allows companies to close off the software and make their own mods behind closed doors. Double edged sword.

File: 1474121392282.png (31KB, 538x382px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 538x382px

>>60669741
>Why do BSD licenses trigger GNUggers?
Because BSD is TRUE FREEDOM!

GNU is nothing more than a fucking orwellian-type cult. These communists even change the meaning of words to fuck with people. They changed the word "freedom" to mean what they want it to mean.

>>60669776
This

>>60670929
/thread

>>60670929
BSD is idealistic freedom.
GNU is freedom, by force.

>>60670383

y u say dat

https://zedshaw.com/archive/why-i-algpl/

>I want people to appreciate the work I’ve done and the value of what I’ve made.
>Not pass on by waving “sucker” as they drive their fancy cars.

Get told BSDfags

>>60669965
> implying the PS4 is good
> implying new consoles are good
Fuck off

>>60669970
And because you allow for bad people to do whatever they want with it without giving back , it never grows and used for botnetchips.

File: ?.jpg (52KB, 900x810px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 900x810px

>>60669741

File: HorribleSubs_Sakura_Quest_-_01_720p.mkv_snapshot_19.27_2017.04.10_23.43.15.jpg (45KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 1280x720px

>>60669741
>>60669760
>>60669794
>>60670126
>>60670292
My god when will this meme end.
Fucking educate yourselves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses.

>they're stealing your code
Nobody is stealing anything.
In whatever form they redistribute your software, be it source or just binary, they have to give you credit and cannot give any credit to themselves whatsoever without your permission.

>companies can redistribute your software only in binary form and never give you anything back
Why the fuck would they even do that?
I mean they can, but either way they can still sell your software and not share any of their profits with you (the same applies to GPL software).
Keeping a project open source does not diminish their profits usually because they will sell your software bundled with something else.
Apple integrates their open source Darwin OS with OS X and iOS which are selled together with computers and phones.
Android and much of Google's software is open source, but they don't profit directly from that.
Red Hat can still sell, even if the OS is almost completely open source and they also sell professional support.

>why is it not in their best interest to distribute only binaries all the time?
Who do they have to call if something goes wrong? You.
Why? Because they know jack shit about the code you wrote especially if it's a large project.
By refusing to share the source code they're just crippling both yours and their project.
Why? Because you may accept their patches in the upstream or just implement some of those ideas in your own way if it's beneficial to your project and they can then expand on that and so on.
There doesn't have to be much collaboration in order to make this a healthy relationship, but there needs to be some.

GPL'd software alienates companies and that reduces the number of possible contributions.
Read https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/articles/bsdl-gpl/article.html.
Jump straight to the conclusion for tl;dr.

>>60669741
They're too free for GNU faggots to understand.

>>60675094
>Why the fuck would they even do that?
Sp they can leave you pennieless

>>60675367
you're pennieless either way

Stallman got pretty triggered when Mundie called GPL viral, but it's an accurate description.

>>60670066
> getting fucked on your own work
> philantropy

>>60675469
>gpl being viral
how is that a bad thing?

>>60675094
>By refusing to share the source code they're just crippling both yours and their project.

These video game companies seem to be doing just fine.