Why is "free software" not really free? Why would someone not want their code to be used by a corporation to possibly invent something that benefits everyone? Why do you care whether you can have the changes they made to it? What makes you think that you're entitled to their modified code just because you decided to give yours away to begin with?
It seems like a lot of the GPL is written from the standpoint of insecurity. You're afraid someone could make something better with your code than you have, so you make sure that you can have whatever they did. Even though, chances are, your code is based on concepts invented by someone else in the first place, making you undeserving of anything they invent anyway.
I just don't see why anyone would attach a viral license to their code if they care anything about freedom. You're like a Christian lawmaker who wants to pass laws congruent with your religion, regardless of the fact that not everyone shares your faith.
The irony in the fact that many "free software" advocates are liberal, despite the heavy religious overtones of their movement, isn't lost on me.
>>54946937
All proprietary software is malware.
>>54946937
Oh maybe because I've decided to share a piece of code with people so they can freely use it and I don't want any companies to take my work, change some aspects of it and advertise it as a "revolutionary" tool only to tell you that you have to pay for it
>>54946937
*tips*
>>54947038
Your machine is full of malware then. You can't deny it. Even Stallman hits a point where his understanding of hardware and its firmware makes him shrug and stop caring.
>>54947056
What's stopping you from proclaiming that your program is revolutionary?
See, you're being insecure about what they'll do with it, exactly as I said.
>>54947059
Of course it is.
Until totally free hardware is developed, no one can be truly free.
>>54947083
That's a nice narrative. It makes you a perpetual victim. Something to always whine about, and feel marginalized by.
The propriety of the code in your machine has literally no bearing on what you can achieve with it.
>>54946937
>ben "one man shoah" garrison
Reported.
>>54947113
The Jewry really has you by the balls, huh?
>>54946937
>but what about my freedom to own slaves
Your freedom ends where it affects the freedom of others.
>>54946937
>What makes you think that you're entitled to their modified code just because you decided to give yours away to begin with?
I didn't "give it away", I distributed it under the terms of the GPL, which state that I am entitled to such modifications. If you don't like the GPL, don't use software under that license. It's that simple.
>>54947148
Exactly. What gives someone the right to code I write just because I used code that they wrote and gave away?
>>54947157
You are giving it away. That's the point of free software. You supposedly want other people to be able to use it. Guess what: they're not going to call you and tell you what they did with your code. You might never know what they did, or ever see it to have any benefit. And you know what a corporation can do? Use your code, NOT distribute their modifications, and only mail it out to someone when they ask for it. Dead serious. It doesn't have to be public, and usually it isn't. Ask Tivo.
>>54947075
No you fucking idiot
I DON'T WANT SOMEONE TO EARN MONEY ON SOMETHING I'VE DECIDED TO SHARE WITH WORLD FOR FREE OKAY?
Like for fuck sake! I don't care if a talented young programmer uses my code and makes it even better! Good for him and community! I don't care about anyone making something better from my work - that's the fucking point of sharing it
>>54947059
>>54947113
Good goyim
>>54947189
Why are you calling me an idiot when you don't understand the most basic rule of the GPL?
YOU CAN STILL MAKE MONEY WITH IT.
Corporations can, and do, sell open-source code literally every day. You can't stop them. Once you put that code on the net, it's theirs.
>>54947123
I like Ben "Straight Outta Auschwitz" Garrison better.
>>54947184
>What gives someone the right to code I write just because I used code that they wrote and gave away?
Only when you distribute your software (under GPLv3+), you have to share your source code and only with whoever you distribute it to.
>>54947211
Maybe because you're trying to imply that I'm insecure about that people can do better than me? For fuck sake I really appreciate hackdoms for what they are as they share work with others so they can learn on it or improve it! So tell me why the fuck should I be insecure about my work? I'm proud of it. You can make it better? Do you have any ideas on how to improve it? Go ahead!
>>54946937
GPL is about user freedom, not necessarily developer freedom. Also, not all free software is licensed under the GPL - projects with a permissive license are considered free software, so you should probably start with a sentence that isn't misleading (a strawman in this case)
>>54947273
You're okay with people improving your work, but only if you can take that work and use it in your version so that it stays on par. You're insecure that someone will make a better version that trumps yours and that you won't be able to do the same.
>>54947282
>dat strawman claim
Also it has nothing to do with user freedom. Users don't need source code. Only developers do.
>>54947184
The point of free software is to give users the freedom to inspect, modify and redistribute source code, all of which are accomplished by the GPL. It sounds like you want the freedom to distribute modified binaries, which is the opposite of free software.
>>54947296
You're a fucking idiot XD
>>54947310
If you just want people to be able to see the code of your application, then why not use the MIT license? Why do you insist on seeing the code that other people wrote on top of your code too? You don't own that.
>>54947352
>dat ad hominem
>>54947296
No, it's actually all about user freedom. The user needs source code to not be subject to the whims of the developer. Even if the user does not know how to program, the other freedoms granted by free software allow the user to ask somebody else to start a community to modify the code as they wish. Also, I noticed all your claims are strawman arguments - you say the GPL is written from the standpoint of insecurity because the GPL developer is afraid someone will make a better product. In fact, the GPL developer chooses the license because they want somebody to make something better. You also compare a GPL developer to a Christian lawmaker, but a GPL developer is not trying to force their license on everybody - just on those who choose to modify and redistribute that program. Contrast that with a Christian lawmaker whose laws would apply to everybody.
Also, you failed to repudiate the first strawman claim (i.e. that GPL is not all free software)
>>54946937
>You're afraid someone could make something better with your code than you have, so you make sure that you can have whatever they did. Even though, chances are, your code is based on concepts invented by someone else in the first place, making you undeserving of anything they invent anyway.
literally nothing prevents anyone from forking your software and calling it theirs.
>>54947220
>not Ben "The one man klan" Garrison
>Windows 10 forced upgrade
>>54947385
>to not be subject to the whims of the developer
There's a thing called NOT using the software. Nobody is forced to use any piece of software on any machine. They choose to. They choose to accept what the developer decided.
It's like some of you have this really crazy twisted idea of what freedom, common sense, and personal responsibility is.
>>54947113
>The propriety of the code in your machine has literally no bearing on what you can achieve with it.
He never said otherwise. He just said it wasn't free.
>>54947432
>there's a thing called NOT using the software
Then don't use GPL software if you have such a problem with it.
>>54947371
I want the users of my software to have their freedoms in perpetuity, so I impose restrictions upon the redistribution of my software and any derived works.
>>54946937
Companies can use gpl software if they want.
They just have to follow the same rules as anybody else.
Fun fact: Codeweavers, a major contributor to wine is not an emulator, created crossover office software under contract from Disney because Disney wanted to be able to run photoshop on their linux clusters.
>>54947484
>freedom
>imposing restrictions
Uhhhh
>>54947577
You're still ignoring the question: why do you deserve the code that they wrote to make a professional product out of your unprofessional one?
Religious people and open-source people are indeed very similar. They have a "my way or the highway" personality. You're allowed to do or think what you want... as long as you don't tread on them.
gpl means if somebody wants to implement your code in their project, the cost is their contribution.
That right there is collaboration.
Permissive license, on the other hand, and some company can grab what you've done, and fuck off with it, contributing nothing back.
This should explain to you why gnu+linux, which came along years after BSD, has surpassed it so vastly in terms of deployment, usability and maturity.
>>54947566
this to be honest family
>>54947641
In the same way that I don't have the freedom to kill you, you do not have the freedom to distribute binaries of my software without corresponding source. Free software is not about absolute individual freedom, but rather safeguarding a certain set of freedoms.
>>54947641
Because he wrote it?
>>54947404
What are you saying ? It's Ben "6 million more" Garrison
>>54947641
Why would a company capable of creating top tier software, want somebody's shit tier code?
You're question is kind of stoopid.
It's not really about "rights" or "deserving". It's about the fact that the one who makes the license makes the rules. If you don't want to follow the license, then write your own code.
>>54947641
It's funny how you're ignoring the other questions posed to you, almost as if you have no good answers for them because you're just a troll. I'll entertain you for a while longer, though.
>why do you deserve the code that they wrote to make a professional product out of your unprofessional one?
Because I licensed my code that way. Don't like it? Don't use my code. An even more valid question would be: why do you deserve to use my code however you wish? After all, you can't use the code for proprietary software any way you wish.
>>54947748
Ask Google and Apple. They do it all the time.
>>54946937
>Why would someone not want their code to be used by a corporation to possibly invent something that benefits everyone? Why do you care whether you can have the changes they made to it? What makes you think that you're entitled to their modified code just because you decided to give yours away to begin with?
A corporation can use "free" software everytime they fucking wish it for whatever the fuck purpose they wish to use it because the GPL grants them such right.
A corporation is free to make whatever fucking changes they wish, because the PGL grants them such right.
A corporation is free to use their modified free software without releasing the changes they've made to it as they wish, because the GPL grants them such right.
A corporation is not free to release and distribute free software with the changes they've made to it without providing the source
Try to read the GPL next time.
>>54946937
Are you really going this full autismo because of the term "free software" isn't 100% literally free?
It's just a term m8. If you want to call it "free software with some restrictions on account of the license surrounding distribution and adaptation" you can go ahead and do that.
If I make a program, why should I release my code at all? I would make more money just copyrighting it.
>>54948078
Because you aren't a greedy fucker and prefer to see your software be improved upon instead of just stagnating until it is irrelevant?
>>54947843
Free Software has no restrictions; it has protections, so it can STAY free.
>open /g/
>aspie teenagers getting completely bullied by trolls
>trolls seem almost as desperate as the morons they're baiting
just like i left it
>>54948170
Sorry.
"Free software with some protections on account of the license surrounding distribution and adaptation."
>>54948113
But I am a greedy fucker. Why would I want someone else's grubby hands in MY program? Sounds like communism to me.
>>54948321
Because you won't make any money from it anyways?
Do you want money or recognition?
And well, seeing as you won't make any money, might as well take the recognition.
>>54948343
I'd choose money over recognition a hundred thousand times. I don't give a single god damn what other people think.
Man, I'm glad this open source bull hasn't caught on in the video game industry.
>>54948377
You say that. But PC gaming could have been so much fucking better if it was more open to it. If things like DirectX wasn't a thing you wouldn't be forced to use Windows if you don't want to. If Nvidia weren't such assholes your games could run better. Being open is what lead us to having games like Brutal Doom(which might be a meme mod but still a pretty amazing achievement). Imagine just how amazing modding could look like if we had access to the source code of games? Even if they were really old like id have done.
>>54946937
Corporations do use GPL code so the entire premise of your argument is patently false.
>>54948560
*few, FEW corporations
>>54948919
If by few you mean damn near every single one then yeah sure.
Are software licenses legally binding?
>>54949215
You can be sued for violating them. Don't mess with any official GNU projects or they'll send Eben Moglen after you.
>>54948560
fuck off
>>54949065
dumb tripfag
>>54947184
The license that the original author put on it. You didn't have to use a GPLed lib, you know.
Personal responsibility, how the fuck does it work?
>>54947189
Then quit whining like a butthurt feminist retard and choose a license with commercial usage restrictions.
>>54946937
Quite possibly the most ironic image I've ever seen.
