>tfw license all of my code under MIT so that I can repackage it into a proprietary version if I can make money on it
>tfw will likely write proprietary code for an employer
>tfw will surrender ownership of my code for money
Get fucked GNU/tards. A man's gotta eat.
>>51667700
>justindianthings
>tfw license all of my code under MIT so that I can repackage it into a proprietary version if I can make money on it
You can repackage all your code into a proprietary version later even if you license it in GPL. Copyright holder can do whatever he wants.
>>51667700
nice blog post faggot
>>51667917
This.
>>51667917
GPL is still cancerous
It doesn't let others package your stuff into proprietary programs
Doesn't seem very free at all to me...
>>51668193
Why would I want to let you package my shit into a proprietary package?
Get fucked, proprietard.
>>51668193
any license that lets you take code and later package it into proprietary software is for keks. BSD is an example of a kek license.
>>51667700
This.
Coding = work. Work should be paid for.
>most of my clients don't care of software licensing
Small Businesses are Booming as fast they are ______
>>51668193
>It doesn't let others package your stuff into proprietary programs
How is that a bad thing? You can sell them a proprietary license if they want to do that. Quite some FOSS projects make money with that way, like Qt.
>>51668231
Sorry pewds. Coding != work.
why do you think you possess the code?
did you make up the language?
did you make your own compiler?
what public sources did you use to learn?
what public sources did you use to create?
your code only exists because of free resources
your code is free
you, are free
>>51668259
> Work is done when a force that is applied to an object moves that object.
Fundamentally, it is work.
>>51668294
Hence eating donuts is work.
>>51668206
>>>51668193 #
>Why would I want to let you package my shit into a proprietary package?
Why do you care?
Your shit is open and free anyway and nobody can change that.
>>51668275
>why do you think you possess the code?
Because I do
That's how copyright works bud
>>51668193
You can release a version under GPL and a version that's proprietary faggot. They need to pay you if they want to monetize it.
>>51667700
>posts Christian Bale
>gets two 3 dubs (66,77,00)
Where were you, /g/?
>>51667700
>Get fucked GNU/tards. A man's gotta eat.
Well, I get paid money to write free as in freedom software so who cares.
Also, the MIT is free as in freedom.
>licence all my code under a modified BSD license so that anyone can repackage it into a proprietary version and can make money on it
>I add a clause that prevents sublicenses from applying to other underived parts of the developer's code.
>I do this just to piss off GPL developers.* Redistributions in binary form or of source code may be sublicensed under
different terms, provided that license does not attempt to limit or alter
distributors' rights to any underived work. If identifiable sections of a
combined work are not derived from this, and can be reasonably considered
independent and separate works in themselves, then any sublicence, and its
terms, must not apply to those sections.
E.g., sublicensing under proprietary, MIT, or even the LGPL is permitted;
however, sublicensing under GPL or other strong copyleft licenses is not.
Although permitted, it is your responsibility to determine compatibility.
>>51669368
>implying anyone wants to use your code
You don't need to license your FizzBuzz implementation kid.
>>51668476
open and free to use and change to fit your needs and help your fellow man
cashing on it is another thing
>>51668326
topkek
>>51668595
LEkt
>>51667700
>black and white worldview
Whatevs man, you've already contributed to free software, you're doing better than 90% of programmers.
>>51668595
if you actually possessed it then you wouldn't have to worry about licenses types at all
the restrictions don't exist unless the public forces them
you are not the public
you are free
>>51667700
>implying I'll touch your code with 2m stick
Make it opensource, get famous, get hire for more money in next project.
>you'll still charge your client for opensource code for the same amount as closed
>>51667917
So can I take everybody else's pull requests under my GPL'd project and repackage it into a proprietary version?
>>51668701
That's obviously Matthew Mcconaughey, retard.
>>51669368
Kek, freetards BTFO
>>51667700
>>tfw license all of my code under MIT so that I can repackage it into a proprietary version if I can make money on it
You can do this with any version of gpl as well, the only difference is no one else can. This makes sense, you want to be able to sell your code but you don't want Joe average profiteering from your hard work.
>>51668193
If you want to do that, you must contact the gpl owner and pay him for a sublicense. In MIT, they can tell the original author to get fucked.
Sorry, why should other people benefit monetarily from my work? I do gpl because getting a job is hard, why make it harder by working for free?
>>51675991
>lol wut is sublicensing lol?
Get rekd you stupid cunt. The original author has complete rights, the FSF will absolutely never sue people who choose to use GPL under any circumstances, if they did everyone would abandon it.
>>51674019
> blindfag detected
>>51667700
if you're going to use a permissive fucking license at least you Apache 2.0 you fucking keks.
>>51673996
Yes, but anyone could take the same project and repackage it into a non commercial version
Also, if anyone asked you for sources you would have to provide them, since your code would still be under the GPL
