>Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted.
Nice "free license" you got there, BSDfags.
it must be really hard to articulate your actual gripe, but try and mumble through it, autistic kid.
it must be really hard to articulate your actual gripe, but try and mumble through it, autistic kid.
it must be really hard to articulate your actual gripe, but try and mumble through it, autistic kid.
it must be really hard to articulate your actual gripe, but try and mumble through it, autistic kid.
>>55009005
It's actually the GPL that restricts freedom, At least the BSD license lets code be used pretty much any way you want.
it must be really hard to articulate your actual gripe, but try and mumble through it, autistic kid.
>>55009005
It costs nothing to use, therefore it's free.
>free software = open-source software
When will this meme die?
>>55009309
when stallsham and his pajeet army dies
>>55009103
>guaranteeing freedom for all users is restricting freedom
>>55009328
freedom in the way the GPL defines it is a perversion of that notion. freedom is defined as autonomy, or the power to act without hindrance or restraint.
GPLv3 imposes pretty severe restraints on the code to which it's applied. we may agree that this is a good restraint - like "you can't murder people" is a good restraint - but it's a restraint nonetheless.
I think it's incredibly disingenuous of RMS and the FSF to advocate GPLv3 knowing this. or if they don't know it, then it's unbelievably - like really not credibly - naive of them.
>>55009309
How does free software differ in any way to open source software?
The official open source definition says the same shit as the GPL besides being copyleft:
https://opensource.org/osd-annotated
BSD: license to cuck
>>55009005
I don't see your argument.
>Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted.
is allowed in all free software licenses.
>>55009435
open source simply means that the source code is available for reuse, redistribution, etc...
"free" software as the FSF defines it means open source, as long as the resultant work is *also* free/under the same terms.
so as an example, if someone makes a good template for a car design and makes it open source, Ford, Honda, etc... could all iterate on that design.
"freedom" in the GPLv3 kinda sense means that Ford, Honda, etc... would all have to also make their versions open source, and with the same provision that any further work deriving from that must too be open source.
this is basically copyleft or, as people at companies call it, "viral" licensing. it's basically become the poison pill that has set back open source software by a decade or more, as it's given lawyers good reason to have a kneejerk "no" reaction to the proposition of using any open source software (lest it be licensed under copyleft terms)
There is literally nothing wrong with proprietary software
>>55009435
Because free in English can imply both "free of charge" or free as in "freedom". There is software distributed free of charge with a closed source.
>>55009497
Free software doesn't have to be copyleft:
>Freedom 3 includes the freedom to release your modified versions as free software. A free license may also permit other ways of releasing them; in other words, it does not have to be a copyleft license. However, a license that requires modified versions to be nonfree does not qualify as a free license.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
That's my point. The free software definition and open source definition are congruent. The GPL is a free software license + copy left. the BSD license is a free software license but not copyleft. They are also open source licenses because their definitions are pretty much the same.
>>55009514
>There is software distributed free of charge with a closed source
Are you saying that open source licenses allow for software distribution without source code? Because that's wrong:
>The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form
https://opensource.org/osd-annotated
i dont have compiler to everyfuckingthing
also free = comunism
>>55009580
What the fuck. Is this some kind of forum sliding shit or what?
This shit is unreadable.
>>55009497
at no point during the writing of this novel did you realize you were blatantly wrong
>>55009623
one can't "realize" something that's not the case.
like you won't ever realize that you're intelligent.
>>55009648
If you're >>55009497 answer to >>55009574. I told you why you were wrong.
What if I WANT people to be able to use my code for any reason, including bulding on it and making a profit, because I believe in actual freedom and the free market?
People should have the freedom to take open code and make a closed-source fork, and consumers should have the freedom to choose not to use that closed sourced version and continue using the open one.
>>55009684
Then you'd use a free software license that is not copyleft.
>>55009695
I know that, but OP's whole point is that he thinks there is something wrong with those licences.
>>55009381
So anti-slavery laws and laws in general are made to hinder general freedom.
>>55009790
increasing freedoms for one means decreasing freedoms for another
>>55009760
I got that from the OP too. While his post was basically just a shit on his keyboard (he didn't even argue anything with his shitpost greentext), he could argue why he doesn't want to give people the right to close-source and redistribute his software for example.
This is the actual talking point, and it's only been started here >>55009381
So why don't we just start every thread about this topic with actually discussing this exact point?
If someone sees GPL code they want to use to create a close-source for-profit product, what's to stop them from just using the exact same logic/algorithm but typing it up in a different language? To think you can stop someone from profiting from your enginuity once you've put something online for all to see, is pretty naive.
>>55009949
Interesting thought. I think here's the answer:
http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/86754/is-it-possible-to-rewrite-every-line-of-an-open-source-project-in-a-slightly-dif
it must be really hard to articulate your actual gripe, but try and mumble through it, autistic kid.
>>55009648
You are conflating free vs open source with copyleft vs permissive licenses.
Both copyleft and permissive licenses are accepted by both FSF and OSI. FSF simply has a preference for copyleft.
Hope this helps.
>>55010258
FSF doesn't have a preference for copyleft in general; they specifically have a preference for the GPL. They recommend avoiding other copyleft licenses, such as the OpenSSL License, since they aren't GPL compatible.
>>55009466
>binary
>free
Learn2Licences nigga
>>55009949
Why can't you closed-source cucks get it in your head. It's not about the developer, it's about the end-user. A free software developer doesn't care if you use his code, he just wants his users to have the freedoms associated with free software.
>>55010467
>>55010171
>>55009166
>>55009103
>>55009060
>>55009048
>>55009020
>>55009015
hello 9gag
>>55010674
this
>>55009005
did you get mad that no one was falling for your shit baits in the other threads so you made this one?
