>get a real job >working for a real company >making

Welcome to the real world kiddie.
It's sink or swim

>>61194854
You are getting an easy job, just do it.

Sounds like a shit place to work. Here we embrace open source and pretty much exclusively work with it, anything in house we make is made from scratch to fill some purpose, or we submit upstream patches.

File: 1497846641955.png (180KB, 633x758px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 633x758px

>>61194864
is anyone clean? has everyone done something at least this dirty? Is this just how it is? You gotta dirty your hands and try to wash the blood off later?
>>61194883
It would also be 'easy' to scam people, but I'm never going to do that because its WRONG

>>61194886
what are you a communist

>>61194854
>its my first fucking job...how can I stand up for myself here

You don't. You suck dick not the other way around.

>>61194903
No, just easier to work with open source tech for the most part and means nothing is entirely off the table to start using as long as there is a decent case for it.

>>61194907
but how am I supposed to do the right thing then?

How can I claim to be moral and justified in my beliefs if I can't even follow them myself?

Has everyone lied to me? Did stallman make proprietary software too? wtf I feel like the ground is falling out from under me

>>61194886
>Here we embrace open source and pretty much exclusively work with it
I envy you.
I recently had to explain jQuery to my boss, and they seemed to take issue with the fact that you don't need to pay for it and you don't need to install it (they don't quite understand JavaScript).

>>61194948
Yeah. It's pretty neato, also comes in handy since all that stupid shit I did during college in my off time is 100% relevant since everything we work with is Linux or open source. Not a single Windows machine anywhere.

Your company can be sued for a lot of money if the open source license doesn't allow for what you're doing.

>>61194945
You're not doing the wrong thing. The company is. You don't have to worry about it. They'll get their due for it.

>>61194964
its the MIT license

they can basically do whatever they want, just as long as the license stays. Afaik they aren't planning on actually ever saying its proprietary, just heavily implying.

File: 250px-Cia.png (114KB, 250x286px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 250x286px

>>61194945
>How can I claim to be moral and justified in my beliefs if I can't even follow them myself?

Gotta deal with capitalism until we reach post-scarcity.

>>61195022
>le post-scarcity meme
kys

>>61195022
was this part of ((their)) plan?

>get real job
>work for a real company
>first major job
>hey so anon we need to pick a framework for a new mobile app, so you're gonna need to find a good open source framework for our needs then get back to me on that thanks
sucks to be you lad :^)

>>61194945
You tell them what you think is wrong legally and morally. If they do not care, then you must resign.

Just fucking do it and then trade a whistle blow for a comfy job with the EFF or GNU foundation.

>>61194854
Literally complaining about having an easy job.

>>61194903
>is anyone clean?
The company I work for is pretty anal about licenses, we've steered away from shit which had even a minute chance of biting us in the ass and it's not a small company either, it's a multinational corporation with thousands of employees.

What you're being asked to do is completely ridiculous.

Deluded freetard Stallmanite crying at renaming some piece of fucking code. Who cares. Save your emotional crisis for something that actually matters you weak moron.

>>61194945
>Has everyone lied to me? Did stallman make proprietary software too? wtf I feel like the ground is falling out from under me

holy shit you sheltered fuck, you're acting like the world is ending because a company is using some random FOSS code for something

what is wrong with you? seriously

>>61195022
When we reach post-scarcity I'm going to hack your Fully Automated Luxury Communism VR machine to profit off the labor you "choose" to do in it.

Isn't this what the bsd license is for?

>>61194854
Blow the whistle anonymously later, it'll be lulzy. Contact the maker of the original open source thing and offer proof of what happened after your company has released it and you've secured other work. ;)

>>61195451
(((You))) mean (((their))) plan? Yeah.

>>61194854
Gee whiz OP, can you tell me the company? I'd like to work for them, too.

>>61195675
i guess this can't come back to me... its microsoft.

File: 1498601177102.gif.jpg (29KB, 255x225px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 255x225px

>>61195652
>>61194854

Keep logs of everything, all communications, all sauce code changes. Get a better job in like 3 years, then blow dat whistle, and watch them burn. Thats what they get for not respecting software freedoms.

>>61195749
You work for Microsoft?

Can you take control of my mouse curser and install Candy crush right now?

And this is why you use GPLv3 for all your personal projects.

>>61194854
If It's GPL just tip FSF and the author of the software about confirmed GPL violations and hope for the best (FSF spends absolute fuckload of money on lawyers)

If it's anything but GPL, you can't do shit, permissive licenses were created for that purpose

>>61195799
yes and no. I'm just a junior dev.

File: 1493847843239.jpg (21KB, 480x258px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 480x258px

>>61195769
>can you explain your contributions at your previous workplace?
>yeah I sucked up to them like a bitch for 3 years then fucked em up with a sucker punch as soon as I left.

When do you think they'll call back?

File: IMG_3300.jpg (338KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

338KB, 1920x1080px

>>61194854
>>61194903
I know a guy who's first job was ripping "Made in China" stickers off of tools and relabeling them "Made in USA." Just get the job done or quit. You'll be the same idiot that can be replaced either way. Remember that, as long as you're in a white-collar industry, you can ALWAYS be replaced.

>>61195829
Just make sure to collect solid evidence to back it up. Otherwise you'll get fired AND sued for calumny

>>61194854
not all companies are like that. some actually respect open source licenses. fyi.

>>61194854
>. I suggested potentially having issues with the task
>telling them about it
You fucked up. You should've just done it and anonymously called Stallman on their ass.

>>61195903
>I know a guy who's first job was ripping "Made in China" stickers off of tools and relabeling them "Made in USA."
That's illegal in USA? Cause I don't think it is in Europe. Before I enrolled to uni I worked for a dutch company in Poland and we had various products with with stickers saying "Made in Poland" when they were actually manufactured in the Netherlands.

>>61194854
This happens all of the time.

>>61196012

Depends. If it explicitly says MADE IN USA but majority of it isn't made in USA, they can get in trouble.

That's why in our country you'll see a lot of "Assembled in USA" or "Designed in USA" or "Packaged in USA" to get around that.

>>61195561

No one gives a fuck. Code gets reverse-engineered all the time. That's how Compaq went from being a no-nothing to a computer powerhouse. Everything gets copied, it's just doing it the right way.

Back when I used to do PHP there were quite a few companies copying Invision Power Board code, especially when they went from 1.3 to 2.0 and decided to go with a new purchasing/licensing model. Change some functions, add some features, remove some other features (temporarily), etc.

I used to convert mods from IPB to some of these up and coming softwares and it was incredibly simple.

File: gm.png (274KB, 492x278px) Image search: [Google]

274KB, 492x278px

>>61195848
I think he meant anonymously whistleblow. Preferably non-publicly too. Perhaps just to the guys that made the original software.

https://reporting.bsa.org/r/report/add.aspx?src=us&ln=en-us

>not just calling your own modified, GPL'd version of the free program from the proprietary one to circumvent the GPL

Do you even jew?
As long as they are packaged separately and not as a single program it's perfectly legal

>>61194854
Leak the code online. People will think it was Russians.

>>61195769
>>61195652

Do that.

Then come back and post results on /g/.

>>61194854
just do it and stop being a beta white knight faggot

>>61194854
Tell them that would be against the law.

If they lay you off for it then you can take them to court for unfair dismissal.

>>61198074
|
|>
|3
|
|

You should advise them that there could be legal trouble- doing this is making the company liable to be sued.
Legal trouble is a viable argument, but ethical issues are not. If they think that 'oh there's some risk in this' they'll be less gung ho for it.

>>61194903
>its WRONG
No it's not. There's no moral obligation to uphold the license of someone who's giving something away for free in perpetuity. They are literally giving up their property rights.
Taking what nature provides and repackaging it for profit is just business 101.

>>61195451
You're not funny.

File: Screenshot_20170703-004031~2.png (319KB, 1440x2064px) Image search: [Google]

319KB, 1440x2064px

>>61198286
You're still going?

>>61198265
Licensing something with GPLv3 does not entail "giving something away" since the license forces derrivative work be also licensed under GPLv3. "You can use my work as long as your work is not proprietary".

There are "fuck-all" licenses and GPL is not one of them. There is reasoning behind Stallman's autism.

>>61198306
>Licensing something with GPLv3 does not entail "giving something away
It does as far as morality is concerned. Its attempt to enslave all that follow is what's immoral.

>>61198265
The GPL literally stipulates that if you copy the code and repackaging it requires that the source code remain free.
If you do so anyway you are legally liable.

>>61194854
This happens when you are detached from reality.

>>61198347
legal != moral
One is not just morally allowed, one is morally obligated to break the GPL at any opportunity.

If the license doesn't allow you to remove features and pretend it's proprietary then it's not really free software is it?
Watch autists sperg over that one

>>61198369
Freedom != Anarchy
Done

>>61198363
Fine, have it your way you ancap fuck. Go destroy some roads while you're at it. Better make the most out of your existance before my lawyers chase you into the woods where you'll continue your existence stealing beaver dams and using the water pressure to charge your jailbroken kindle so you can finish reading Steal This Book.

>>61195007
>MIT license

wow it's fucking nothing

>>61198449
The only thing being broken is the license, which frees it. The proper analogy would be:

>someone makes a road, declares it free, and decrees that anyone who makes a road linking to it must make theirs free as well

There is no moral obligation to uphold that. Also, as they cannot profit on the road, they no longer have any essential property rights regarding it. They've thrown it away and so now anyone may move in and claim it.

Free software means the freedom to do that kind of shit. Suck it up and take your money.

>>61198265
>There's no moral obligation to uphold the license of someone who's giving something away for free in perpetuity.
Luckily there is a legal obligation so we don't have to worry about this moral bullshit.

File: 1494954217310.jpg (30KB, 720x710px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 720x710px

>>61198524
>all these spooks
>insisting people conform to a weird definition of property rights which conveniently happens to benefit you

i love how ancaps insist everyone else respect their property rights as sacred while constantly making up excuses to ignore others

like how they'd have nothing against a landowner charging rent as taxes and imposing laws on his residents but when a state tries to do it it's wrong because the state didn't take ownership according to the contrived definition they provide

it'll forever be a meme tier ideology

>>61198712
I don't believe the Supreme Court has upheld that.

The GPL does not cover anything that copyright was invented to protect. The GPL is the equivalent of taking out a garden hose, wetting your neighbor's lawn, spreading birdseed on it, and declaring it a wetlands essential for migratory birds in order to stop your neighbor from building. That's rather far from the original intent of the law even though a brain-dead judge may agree that it's a wet land with birds present so it technically applies.

The GPL does not protect an innovator's ability to capitalize on his invention, nor does it protect his right to not capitalize on it. All it does is prevent anyone else from doing so, which would be their natural liberty. Since the GPL leaves nothing that would need be personally protected, there's nothing to conflict with natural liberty. GPL'd software has been effectively abandoned and anyone may do with it as they please as it is the fairest of uses.

File: hulk.png (45KB, 615x465px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 615x465px

>>61198524

I think it's more equivalent to this:

>check out this sweet png
>you can do what you want with it
>you do

>>61198864

That's absolutely wrong. The GPL is giving something away and saying you can do what you like with it, with the one condition that any changes you make must also have the same conditions. Pretty simple, but perhaps too much for you dummy.

>>61198864
GPL has as much legal power as any other user license.

>>61198881
>with the one condition
That one condition is immoral. It is also not in keeping with the original purpose of the law it uses.

>>61198916
No. Copyright is long established by the Supreme Court. Copyleft is not.

>>61198524
>you only own physical property if you're trying to make money from it

That's a fucking boneheaded half-assed thought that shows you haven't even begun to understand what you're talking about.

>>61195007
If it is MIT, they can do whatever they want to, even change its license, as long as they retain somewhere info about its original author(s). This ain't no commie licensing like GPL.

>>61198925
how is the condition immoral given that it exists specifically to benefit users and allow the technology to be advanced

wouldn't locking things down, restricting progress until it benefits you be immoral

what do you even mean by moral

>>61198881
>you can do what you like with it, with the one condition

>do what you like

>with one condition

>you're only free if you do exactly what we tell you

>>61198965
too much for you, huh?

>>61198958
In other words, cuck license.

>>61198925
>>61198864
You can get sued for not respecting GPL
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=98d5ec53-ce49-40fc-a2e4-7a1c84a2aa46

>>61198955
If you are not and will not be gaining anything of value from it, there is zero reason for the government to protect the concept of your ownership of it.

>how is the condition immoral given that it exists specifically to benefit users and allow the technology to be advanced

It violates my liberty without sufficient cause.

Anyone can copy. Not just anyone can create. Copyright exists to protect creators from those who would merely copy their work in order to protect and spur creativity. This is sufficient for the state to be justified in overriding my natural liberty to copy as I please. The GPL, however, insists that it be copyable. There is no longer a reason for copyright, thus the state has no cause to interfere with my natural liberty, and doing so is an immoral encroachment on my rights.

>>61199041
You can sue for anything.

>>61198965

Don't use it then faget. Enjoy windaids. :^)

>>61199090
>If you are not and will not be gaining anything of value from it, there is zero reason for the government to protect the concept of your ownership of it.
I gain nothing of tangible value from my PS4. If anything, I lose time and money on it. Guess that means you can steal it without governmental repercussions, huh?

You have no idea what property is.

>>61194854
>hey so anon can you take this open source thing and remove these cool features and remove all branding so we can say its proprietary thank

Are you an OSX developer?

>>61199090
you'll be able to use the software, and if others contribute, you can use their contributions
how is that not gaining anything of value from it
you're restricting yourself to an overly specific definition of gaining value

also why should protecting your liberty be moral where it harms others and holds advancement back
you've said yourself that you're willing to let it be overridden when necessary, but you're insisting it's different in this case?

>>61194854
>take this open source thing and remove these cool features and remove all branding so we can say its proprietary thanks
is the program under GPL
if so, i don't think you are allowed to do that.

>>61199127
>I gain nothing of tangible value from my PS4. If anything
Who said anything about it being limited to tangible?

You're not giving it away, are you? If you did, that would be evidence that you have no tangible or intangible benefits to continued ownership.
The GPL gives software away with nothing but the shackles of a political philosophy attached. So the item itself is obviously of no value, and political philosophies must pass through the legislature to be made into law. So the GPL is empty.

>>61199202
If it doesn't have a tangible value to you, others can claim that it has no value to you. The only alternative to your theory that "valueless" means "you don't own it," means its on the claimant to prove a negative, which is literally impossible, making your entire argument retarded.

>>61198965
You are free to use, modify and redistribute the program
You are not free to change the licence as you please.
Same way you cannot take fucking Adobe Flash and release it under GPL (unless Adobe explicitly allows you so)
GPL is as viable as any other licence, why would you be allowed to go against that one, but you have to respect other ones?

>>61199141
Gaining something from the enslavement of others cannot be counted as you have no such right to do so.

>get a real job
shit normies say

>>61199210
>If it doesn't have a tangible value to you, others can claim that it has no value to you.
Who cares? A claim is not a judgement.

>>61199202
it's not given away
others are merely granted the rights to use, examine, modify, and redistribute it provided their respect your terms

it's not placed in the public domain

>>61199219
you don't have to use it if you disagree with the terms
it's hardly enslavement
they could have not made it available at all

>>61194854
> open source
It's fine if it's BSD or used inside the company. Also you guys can sell it but provide the source code if it's GNU, nobody will bother to compile it.

>>61199240
>it's not given away
>others are merely granted the rights to use, examine, modify, and redistribute it provided their respect your terms

The terms are not morally enforceable, thus it is given away.

>you don't have to use it if you disagree with the terms

My natural liberty came first. Copyright is merely a limited, temporary restriction for cause. Take away the cause and my natural liberty comes back in full force. You are claiming a natural right to licensing which does not exist.

File: 1492844046890.jpg (159KB, 582x582px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 582x582px

>>61199282
>morally enforceable
>muh liberty

also different cause!=no cause

If you get caught, you'll take the blame. The company will fire you, releasing a statement on Facebook, "we are shocked by this behavior. We at company x do not condone this behavior and are always dedicated to serving our customers ethically". Meanwhile your name will be stained forever, and you'll never get a job again.

So ask yourself: how likely are you to get caught? Is it worth risking your career for a scumbag company who will only make you the bad guy? Lastly, is your name going to be attached to this code in any shape or form after the job is done? Because if the code is used 10 years from now and someone discovers that it was ripped, you'll still take the blame and you may be fired from the job you have at that time.

>>61199293
There is no cause that We the People have agreed deserves respect. We have in fact agreed it doesn't.

"I agree to place restrictions on my natural liberty to copy as creating a creator's right to profit from his work is beneficial"
Freetard: "THIS MEANS YOU AGREE THAT COPYRIGHT IS EVIL AND THAT EVERYBODY SHOULD BE MADE TO GIVE AWAY COPIES BECAUSE I CAN MAKE COPYRIGHT SAY THAT WITH THE GPL!"
I'm pretty sure I said just the opposite.

You are fucked either way. It may not come back to haunt you if you do it. But you are taking a risk. If you can get evidence to suggest they told you to do it then you are covered. If not then you either take the risk or tell them to fuck off. If they fire you take them to court (EFF or GNU may give support if you can provide evidence).

Log EVERYTHING!

>>61199254
TP-Link does this
On my router manual there is a tiny note saying something along the lines of
>portions of this product contain code licensed under the GPL and the source code is available under request. Contact <tp-link email> for more information

>>61198265
But proprietary shit is untouchable and sacred, amirite? LMAO, typical corporate cock sucker bullshit.

>>61198965
it's actually only there to protect the freedom of as many people as possible

>>61199999
>>61200000

>>61194886
I work for a major tech company, it's the same here, we actually avoid proprietary stuff whenever we can, but it's mostly a money saving thing than idealogical.

Our main product is a web based saas platform, though, and when it comes to the main product we are absurdly cautious about the use of any open source code. The lawyers say it will weaken our patent defenses.

>>61194854
I wouldn't be surprised if the company you work for is Microsoft, Apple, or Google.

First do what they're asking, while keeping meticoulous logs of everything including communication logs. In the meantime, search for another job. As soon as you get paid & find another job, write to the project mantainers, the FSF and Stallman, they love this shit.

>>61200181
This definitely doesn't happen at any company big enough to have their own lawyers in house, unless the company was founded by lawyers then you can bet your ass they're doing shady ass shit like this.

>>61198965
>you can do anything
>except you aren't allowed to take the freedoms of others

THIS IS OPPRESSION
THE FREEDOM TO OWN SLAVES IS IN THE CONSTITUTION

>maintaining nonfree forks.

Have fun in 5 years when company x (your customer) says your product is insecure and you have to take a few months to upgrade all your nonfree , downstream shit because of breaking compatibility changes.

>>61194854
>>61195007
>MIT license
Just do it, MIT is a crap license anyway.
But seriously, don't fucking do shit like that with GPL licensed software. The resulting clusterfuck for GPL violation is insane.

>>61195769

Enjoy being blacklisted.

>>61195536
>implying anyone on /g/ can hack something more secure than a toaster

use agpl for private projects you idiots

>>61198074
>>61198925
>>61199090
>>61199380
>>61200923
Gee, I wonder ((who)) could be behind these posts.....?

>>61194854
>I suggested potentially having issues with the task and they said there's another guy who had basically just as good a chance at getting the job.

You want work for animals like these? Sounds like you have head on shoulder, take high road.
Waffle on project few weeks while make plans for new job then bail.

>>61194854

Do it

nobody will use it because it is worse than the non-proprietary one

>>61194854
> A whistleblower (also written as whistle-blower or whistle blower) is a person who exposes any kind of information or activity that is deemed illegal, unethical, or not correct within an organization that is either private or public.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower