GPLfags insist that the GPL prevents companies from stealing code and using it in proprietary products without compensation. They say the BSD license doesn't prevent this and that is why we must use the GPL.
But what about Android? Android is a proprietary platform that is locked down, preventing you from modifying the environment (unless you defeat the protections i.e. jailbreak). Google just took Linux, which is a GPL licensed product, and used it in a proprietary system, laughing all the way to the bank. They can do this because they just engineer their system to hook into Linux, rather than modifying it. Any modifications they do contribute are modifications that help them and their products.
The GPL doesn't stop the commercialisation of software. All it does is increase the risk that you will randomly get sued on a technicality if you work with GPL software.
Android isn't locked down by google, it's the carriers modding the OS that locks it down. you fucking faggot.
Post some Blunt pits
>>54883598
This
>>54883543
>But what about Android? Android is a proprietary platform that is locked down, preventing you from modifying the environment (unless you defeat the protections i.e. jailbreak).
That's the carriers and sometimes the OEM's
>Google just took Linux, which is a GPL licensed product, and used it in a proprietary system, laughing all the way to the bank.
Google contributes a lot to the kernel, even though most of their stuff is outright refused by the mainline kernel maintainers, but some of it eventually has inspired improvements in the mainline kernel
>They can do this because they just engineer their system to hook into Linux, rather than modifying it.
That's not how it works, they have modified the kernel tot he point that Android uses it's own fork from mainline LTS
>Any modifications they do contribute are modifications that help them and their products.
Which can help other people, and has helped
Also. they avoid GPL and the GNU as much as possible, most of the FOSS code in Android is BSD or MIT, to avoid having to deal with the GPL
>The GPL doesn't stop the commercialisation of software. All it does is increase the risk that you will randomly get sued on a technicality if you work with GPL software.
It's not supposed to stop commercialization you dumb fuck
>>54884207
>semantics and nitpicking
>It's not supposed to stop commercialization you dumb fuck
Yes it is. That's the only reason it exists.
To clarify, maybe I should have used the term 'proprietise' rather than 'commercialise', but let's think this through. The GPL exists to prevent the software becoming proprietary. In practice this means it is in place to prevent the software being commercialised, because proprietary software is essentially commercial software, and in practice nobody makes money selling GPL software, not even Red Hat.
What I'm saying is that the GPL can't even prevent the very thing it's trying to prevent, in practice.
Isn't AGPL the solution?
BSD or gtfo
The GPL has a gaping loophole. Its terms only apply to distribution, not use. Guess what the dominant business model is nowadays? Cloud. Guess what that is not? Distribution. I'm making all sorts of money from GPL cucks' hard work while sitting back and sipping my ice tea.
>>54884207
Why is it refused? Didn't Linus say he takes good code?
They take code from Microsoft and Intel iirc.
>>54884516
>nobody makes money selling GPL software.
Parted Magic
ALL copyright is essentially theft, even if wielded in the name of some nerd's greater good. My shit is mine, and I will keep it and do what I want with it. My shit is not yours because you made it.
Higher goals are justifcations and abstractions of justifications for selfish desires. What, do you think stallman is serving the high god of human rights? No, he's serving himself. All instances of "...then the world would be better" are ended with an implicit "for me". Stallman doesn't even try to hide this, making hypocritical exceptions to his own philosophy anywhere he doesn't want the "freedom" and would rather not incur more wrath from IP-reliant industry, and carefully defining what the freedom needs to exist based on his own skillset. A more practiced hacker might not demand the source code, just a guarantee that the source and binary would always be legally usable for any and all purposes. A less practiced hacker might say that software is not free unless the source is readable and well commented.
GPL = scam
Might makes right, so fight.
>>54885393
>your face when a world with no copyright would still have a profitable software industry, but no free software except for stagnant BSDs
>>54883543
Google is hip and cool, therefore allowed to get away with flagrant copyright abuse, literal spying and adware (every single email to, from, or in a Gmail account is read and used to build your ad profile), and other terrible behavior in the eyes of its users.
Honestly, at this point Microsoft is less worse.
>>54885511
>Google can afford better lawyers than freetards, and is therefore allowed to get away with....
There I fixed your post
>>54884207
>Also. they avoid GPL and the GNU as much as possible, most of the FOSS code in Android is BSD or MIT, to avoid having to deal with the GPL
why didn't they use netbsd in the first place then, what the fuck
>>54883543
jump off a cliff
Wasn't the whole reason why some other chan decided to have Inf Next as AGPL, so some greedy guy couldn't turn the site into porn?
>>54883543
This is called Tivoization, and it's the main issue GPLv3 was written to address. Linux has not moved to v3 because it would be very difficult to get every contributor to agree to the change and because Linus doesn't think it's an issue.
>>54884568
AGPL is for web services, i.e. if you provide your program as a service (run it for other users) you must make the source code available and all derivative works must also be AGPL licensed. It is built to counteract >>54885340 but it's so drastic (it's like GPLv3 on roids and gamma rays) that no one uses it.
>>54885393
>I write something, so it's mine
>I provide it to others out of good will, but since it is mine, I have the right to prevent you from calling it yours
seems pretty logical to me, ubermensch
