What do you license your software with, /g/?
GPL
>b-b-but nobody will want to use your software
if they're not interested in contributing back to free software like I did, I don't want them touching my libraries.
If I care about the project GPLv2+, if I dont something permissive.
>>51605803
Fucking truth. Apache has ruined free software.
GPLv3 or bust.
Any beer license.
MIT with clause that forbids linking GPL code.
MIT
I write a new, custom license for every software I develop.
>>51607559
GPLv3 only or any later version?
Standard copyright.
I can't use competition.
ISC
>>51608573
Don't care if people pirate it. But I'm allergic to paki's.
>>51605803
if i take gpl software, improve it, and dont release to public am i a criminal?
I dont care about license I put my stuff under.
I interned in a company that claim to use "open source technologies".
Truth was they just use python cause they were poorfags that cannot afford matlab.
Dudes there were copying every file they can make use of on the internet and did not gave a fuck of all the commercial speech of the licenses.
If you put your stuff on the internet, everybody who can use it will use it.
Everything I post online is just trivial or things I wont care if someone else uses it to make money.
>>51605770
>GNU/dad
keking kek'd
>>51605770
WTFPL
BSD
GPL3.
>>51605770
WTFPL errytime.
Public domain coz I don't give a fuck
>>51608722
No. Distribution would make you a criminal though.
Used to go full proprietary, for some time stuck with zlib, now I go mostly GPL with zlib for some minor stuff.
I was wondering why dont you write the license yourself? I mean it would be shorter and straight to the point. I imagine that those popular licenses are thousands of shit text about birocracy.
Isn't it just easier to be like "i forbid blabla" or "i do not forbid blabla" .
Anyway how do you catch someone pirating your little software in the sea of software and priacy especially if that pirate is ,lets say, in china or russia and not in your western country.
>>51611539
You clearly don't understand legalese
You write your own license, a lawyer out there can easily fuck you out of whatever terms you think you've set
>>51611635
I understand how lawers can do fucked up things because the system itself is shitty and all that paperwork stuff...But If I write that I forbid anyone to distribute or change software how can lawyer make that into "hey guys heres the software i was working on for year and i do not have any other income but this, but fuck it here you go for free and feel free to earn money out of my work" ?
>>51611682
Well, the flipside of the coin is if it isnt written properly to allow certain uses, you end up with a license lawyers will want to stay the hell away from.
A license written by a layman has 2 main possibilities legally - either abused with loopholes to go against the spirit of the license, or seen as a risk and actively avoided.
Abuse or irrelevance.
That's why the FSF/BSD/Apache/etc folks get real lawyers to write there license.
This works in favour of the WTFPL users however, because those guys don't give a fuck if their code is abused.
ASL master race.
>>51607619
this
Whats the difference between gpl v2 and v3?
Why can i use gpl2 code in gpl3 licensed shit and csnt use gpl3 shit in gpl2 stuff?
>release work with wtfpl
>someone takes my work, claims intellectual property, changes the license to proprietary, "closes" the source and sues me for releasing it
>mfw wtfpl grants them rights to do just that
