Why can't some people understand how harmful a permissive license is. You aren't just giving away your work with no expectation of help, you are giving everyone the permission to use your software to violate the rights of everyone else. Projects licensed under these terms are just as bad, IF NOT MORESO than proprietary software.
Why can't some people understand how harmful a permissive license is...
Gabriel James
Other urls found in this thread:
wiki.fsfe.org
opensource.google
twitter.com
Joshua Turner
yup. BSDtards will seethe at this
Ian Perez
Trips of truth. The simple fact is that we have already seen this (rights violating proprietary software based on permissive licenses) too, many times to count. And it's (at least as far as copyright goes) legal each time, the only time we see this with GPL is when corporations steal code, which is very much illegal which is very much the point.
Robert Adams
Until there's an authority to audit all sourcecode corporations write (never), licences are worthless, they'll just use your code anyway and you can't prove shit.
Ian Hall
The point of a "permissive license" is to give companies like Bell Labs, Google, and Apple the ability to use your code for free as a basis for proprietary software that they can make money off of. That's why people call it a cuck license. They get money and you get nothing.
Brandon Sanchez
All licenses are evil and should be abolished
If you can read the code, it should automatically be yours
If you want to be the only owner of your code, simply hide it
Christopher King
Leaks do happen user, and there have already been lawsuits involving the GPL. See wiki.fsfe.org
Levi Brown
That's literally what GPL tries to do. It only exists in current form because it has to work with current laws and overthrow them from inside out.
Justin Jones
No you nigger, the only """license""" that does this is Public Domain
Landon Barnes
It's the job of us GPLchads to uplift the ignorant
Andrew Edwards
How do you release things in the Public Domain?
Christopher Cook
When you sue someone for copyright theft, there actually is an audit that takes place.
How would you know someone is using your code without a leak? It's actually fairly obvious if within a year of you releasing something, some release a paid product that includes or relies on the functionality of your code.
For example, if you release a library, then you can compare what FOSS projects novelties use such a library for and compare that to the Proprietary program. If they share, you can look for other evidence (from circumstantial to machine code), and if you have enough you can get a judge to order an audit.
Jordan Reed
In a perfect world that should be automatic
In our world, you need to explicitly unlicense it
Blake Murphy
No, you fool. Code is separate from machine code, You are giving everyone the right to take that code, and release binaries.
Grayson Wood
>You are giving everyone the right to take that code, and release binaries.
Yes, that's how it should be. Again, if you don't want that, just hide your shit where nobody can see it.
Daniel Anderson
>program runs on a remote server
>provides a service by taking and answering requests
>no idea how it works
>no machine code to look at
What now? Do you start accusing everybody like an autist?
Andrew Ramirez
what is an effective solution to keep the chinks away from my free software code?
Jordan Flores
Depends on your goal. Doing something complex that you know? Use GPL. Otherwise people will just leech of your work. Doing something you want people to use/fix because you don't really understand it yourself? Use BSD.
Ethan Cooper
Running a GPLd program on a remote service is perfectly fine, you only need to share the source code if you are actually distributing it.
AGPL considers accessing the program over a network as distribution, and not coincidentally jews are scared of it opensource.google
Ian Taylor
No, that is not how it "should be". A programmer releasing software should be a net non-negative for society, either they release a useless program or a useful program. When you let people take that and just release a binary with no source, you are actively hurting society: people now have no idea what is running on their computer. That's not even mentioning added malware and spyware that come with 99% of proprietary software.
That's not against the terms of the gpl as you aren't releasing anything publicly
Dominic Perez
>you are actively hurting society: people now have no idea what is running on their computer
People have the right to be stupid you nigger, if they are low IQ and they get hurt because of it, that's good for evolution
What we should not do is force people to do things, like forcing them to respect licenses of abstract things like code