![tumblr_nns8mopbvr1tqe2i0o1_r1_1280[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/7GozHlk.gif "tumblr_nns8mopbvr1tqe2i0o1_r1_1280[1].gif")
How the fuck does one deal with all those fucking licenses when wanting to release a program?
I've got a program written in java (among the other things I do), and for once I want to sell it instead of letting it go to waste. The thing is I always just start making my programs, adding the libraries I need and know about, not giving a fuck about licenses.
Now I noticed that some of my maven dependencies have a shitton of licenses on them like epl, apache, cddl, etc. Tldrlegal doesn't come close to explaining them enough (e.g. "disclose source" source of WHAT exactly? The library I used or my own, first-party, proprietary code?), and the actual licenses themselves are shitton of legalese.
How the fuck does anyone manage to be productive with that whole clusterfuck of license shit weighing down on you and ironically limiting your freedom by forcing you to do things like disclosing source code you wrote while it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the licensed library you used?
>>51263368
hehe... why 4chan no make good oc like this
This why I use dependencies sparingly. You should have paid more attention.
Your choices are to find libraries that use one license or code the requirements yourself. Or a combination of the two.
Bump for interest
disclose nothing and wait for a freetard to pop up, then claim innocence
>>51263368
>proprietary software
>make money while you sleep scam
The licenses you hate were made EXACTLY to stop fags like you
REEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>51263368
the irony in this post is quite astounding
>>51263368
If you're too stupid to figure out what those licenses mean please don't release any software and just keep your shitty code to yourself.
>>51263494
mm... i remember that from the explosively fun trinkets thread i made a while ago. that was a good time can we get another one of those going im kind of scared to start one but ppl rly loved it that one time fortysix mil seven fifty eight thou one twennyseven
>>51263494
me too
Ask a lawyer about it, then hire them when you get sued.
just put it in the public domain
problem solved
Should've used GPL. Now you'll get keked.
here's how it goes
public domain: idgaf
mit/bsd/isc: i don't want lawyers after me
gpl: i want other people to release source code if they use/change it
>>51263368
See, you wouldn't have this problem if you JUST
MADE IT
OPEN
SOURCE
>>51263368
So you used all this work that other people gave you for free (so long as you don't try to make money for it), and now you want to use their hard work to make money?
Go open, rewrite all the dependencies yourself from scratch, or get bent. Those are your three options.
>>51263540
I don't want to work for free. Instead, I want to make a product and sell it at a fair price.
Oh I'm such an evil bastard.
>>51264878
>I don't want lawyers after me
right on point
>>51263368
>Implying freetards can afford lawyers
>implying freetards have access to your source code
Just sell the software, nobody's gonna care
>>51265081
>i don't want to work for free
Yet you want others to?
If you want to sell your shit, make it yourself and fuck off.
>>51265152
The thing is, I'd write a *library* for free too if I had an idea for one. Writing *end products* for free is just stupid. That's the big difference. Libraries should be freely usable, services bigger than just a code library should be restricted.
>>51265176
Libraries still make time to develop and refine.
People have created those libraries for free (as in beer), on the condition that you make whatever you use them in free (as in freedom).
It seems like a fair trade.
A number of free software licenses work just fine with proprietary software. As long as none of your libraries are GPL or some weird creative commons, you're fine.
>>51263368
if you used BSD licensed code you are good to go at whatever the fuck you want to do, now enjoy your commy freedoms
>>51263368
I've always wondered.. How can people sue if they can't even see the code? I mean, how can they be so sure?
>>51267418
Aren't you legally required to display the particular portion of the code accused of infringement?
