EU DICTATORSHIP DECLARES WAR AGAINST THE WORLD WIDE WEB

Free Software can only exist if you can enforce the freedoms. Without copyright you can't prevent niggers from taking your shit and shitting all over it.
Yes. Open source would still exist. But Open source is garbage.
gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html

Freetards would still exist. Libre software just wouldn't be enforceable, which is a GOOD THING since it's just another anti-freedom movement just like copyrights. You'd already have the freedom to distribute and alter software without the consent of the original creator or the government. You don't need access to it's source code or force people to give their source.

he said while sucking systemdick and giving in to corporate control.
Communist always shout how anti-capitalistic they are while getting big donations from hypercapitalists.
What most Linux users want is a good desktop OS. What the corporations want is a server hosting OS and nothing more.

The source code would leak eventually, no one would be ordered to take it down and you'd be able to use it.
It just wouldn't be the stallman kikes dream.
*taking a copy of your shit
Why would I care? It's not like it'd be theirs for eternity (like it's now). Sooner or later the source code would be published or leaked (The bigger the group making it, the higher chance that'd happen.) or they die and the source code is lost and everyone will give up their abandonware.

This.

Tor is the easiest to use and it still lets you browse normal net. You can effortlessly set up your own anonymous websites. For now it's the best choice.
IPFS is basically torrenting turned into websites. It's not anonymous at all and it's vulnerable to "muh wrongthink" and ISP bans/fines in oppressive countries like Germany. But it's good for decentralized normie browsing.
I2P is a convoluted mess.
GNUnet is a convoluted mess.
Freenet is broken by 3-letter agencies so it's no longer safe.
Zeronet and beaker browser are a meme.
Retroshare is literally an email/social media/IM hybrid. It's a clusterfuck.

Surprised I haven't heard arguments that this is a good thing. Neutering companies like Facebook and pushing users into how the web was meant to be - hosting your own websites. Also, imageboards aren't big enough to be affected by this.

Thancc

Fucking glowers :(

fuck off, corporate shill
gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html

Wow. Calling you a BSDnigger really triggered you.

I'm not on BSD, kike.

No one actually cares, faggot. I would appreciate being forced to do something actually productive.
I just want to watch the modern cancer known as the (((web))) burn down. JavaShit, CSS, HTML, PHP, Node.js, Python, all those things are CANCER and they power the majority of websites.
It all needs to burn down.
>>> ACCELERATE >>>

Why are you so triggered then? It sound to me like you are butthurt about corporations taking your code and giving nothing back
It must be pretty humiliating getting cucked that hard.

t. people who have never made anything worth a shit.

It must be pretty humiliating getting cucked that hard.

We're not saying it's bad, we're saying it's bad in it's current form. Like people still profiting from books written a century ago.

Sorry m8, my Android smartphone doesn't have any Google services installed. This is possible thanks to the GPL so I don't get what you are talking about.

You do
No shit.
gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html

...

Wrong. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_custom_Android_distributions

...

scroll down, nigger
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PostmarketOS

That's what I call a phone OS.

Nice goalpost shifting.

Download Freenet and then download Frost.

I'm not shifting the goal. If you want your phone and it's components to be usable, you're forced to run Android and all phones are non-standardized because no UEFI/BIOS.
Phone users are in no way free.

kys retard. also why are you saging?

It's not freedom you fucking retard. If you're literally forced to disclose source codes of your software that's the OPPOSITE OF FREEDOM. Are you this dense? You have the freedom to reverse engineer the software. That's all you need. Think with your fucking peanut of a brain for one second.

If your product was worth anything you wouldn't have to resort to a fucking nanny state forcing people to pay for something that has no value or has already been released to the public. Find an alternative way to monetize your shit without infringing basic human rights.

Copyright is bad in any form. Intellectual property should only be protected if it's private, as in you have the only copy. Something that's given away or sold (compiled software and media) is no longer privately owned and shouldn't fall under any kind of protection.

There is always the fear some kike or gook may trample over you and claim to be the producer of the work if you're not a big corp but time may prove you're right.

Based RMS disagrees with you: gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html

STOP SPAMMING, FUCKING KIKE

sage negated :^)

unbased

If you had an argument, you would write it down instead of telling us to read a book written by a kike, communist scum.

I have no idea why I saged :^)

lol

forgot pic

Attached: not an argument.jpg (500x534, 39.03K)

But this doesn't matter. If you've already sold your work then it's irrelevant.

I'm not going to read his autistic rantings. But yes, copyright is bad and will be until you find me a solution which won't stop people from freely distributing or editing and distributing information or objects that they were given/sold without government or corporate interference.

10/10 argument

Nice >>>/ipfs/ shoutout

useful
would be moreso with some descriptions and background on some of the programmes and opinions on them.

Copyleft only exists because copyright exists. Without copyright everything would be copyleft by default. So copyleft is just a term made up to protect free software in this unjust world where copyright laws exist. Besides, only public domain is good and permissive licenses are close enough. GPL is literally the same shit as a proprietary license since it FORCES people to disclose source code. So it's not free, like the RMS claims. I don't use an Orwellian dictionary where free = force people to disclose secrets.

GIVE ME A WORKING LINK TO NANOCHAN THEN YOU NIGGERS

Attached: LET ME IN.mp4 (640x360, 223.16K)

Wrong. Copyleft can't exist without copyright.
gnu.org/copyleft/
How would you enforce this without copyright?

If you like being cucked, that is.

Proprietary software is harmful.
gnu.org/proprietary/proprietary.html

gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

you're misunderstanding me. Without copyright, everything would behave like copyleft because people are free to share information without government intervention.
Listen. If copyright doesn't exist, then this right here would be the actual law. It wouldn't be called "copyleft" because the freedom of speech and information sharing already covers this. Anything you share to the public is no longer under your control nor should the government force any control over it.
This is not a requirement unless you release your modified version to the public. In which case you're back on step 1, the public is allowed to do anything they want with it. If you use it privately, for example a modified BSD/Linux kernel on your servers, you should not be forced to release the source code of any of that.
That's exactly what I'm saying you should be able to do. Without copyright laws, nothing would prevent you from doing any of this so the "free licenses" wouldn't need to exist. The reason this sentence exist is *because* current laws are against freedom of speech and personal ownership.

No. Copyleft requires "all modified and extended versions of the program to be free as well".
If you don't have copyright, you can't enforce this. Some nigger could take your program, modify it and never release the source code.

no

gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic

Refer to freedom #1 and #3:

Good. That's his right and it shouldn't be infringed.
Yes, for fucks sake. If there's no law that prevents you from doing something then you're allowed to do it.
This is utterly false. You're free to decompile or reverse engineer software. But sure, having source code is a good thing but it shouldn't be required by law.

BSD nigger spotted
But copyleft requires you to do something and it enforces that thanks to copyright. So if you don't have copyright, you can't have copyleft. But you said "If copyright doesn't exist, then this right here would be the actual law.". You are wrong.
It is literally the definition of Free Software.
LOOOL. Why don't you go ahead and reverse engineer windows? Kys retard.

Because it's illegal, you fucking Orwellian retard.
"Free software" is just as against freedom as proprietary software.
Only in the part about requiring source code, which I'm against anyways. Everything else applies.

It's more likely that you are a gigantic LARPer that doesn't understand that reverse engineering is hard.
You still don't understand Free Software. The free applies to the software itself.
There are 4 freedoms that have to be provided or else it isn't Free Software. The GPL is a license ensuring those freedoms.
The GPL isn't a permissive license. If you want a permissive license choose BSD/MIT.
Took you long enough for admitting that you are wrong.

You've posted RMS. We've already read it. We think hes an idiot now fuck off.

who? sage negated btw :^)

Don't make shit threads then.

She devised a monopoly where the London printing guild would get a complete monopoly on all printing in England, in exchange for her censors determining what was fit to print beforehand. It was a very lucrative monopoly for the guild, who would be working hard to maintain the monopoly and the favor of the Queen’s censors. This merger of corporate and governmental powers turned out to be effective in suppressing free speech and political-religious dissent.

The monopoly was awarded to the London Company of Stationers on May 4, 1557. It was called copyright.

It was widely successful as a censorship instrument. Working with the industry to suppress free speech worked, in contrast to the French attempt in the earlier 1500s to ban all printing by decree. The Stationers worked as a private censorship bureau, burning unlicensed books, impounding or destroying monopoly-infringing printing presses, and denying politically unsuitable material the light of day. Only in doubtful cases did they care to consult the Queen’s censors for advice on what was allowed and what was not. Mostly, it was quite apparent after a few initial consultations.

There was obviously a lust for reading, and the monopoly was very lucrative for the Stationers. As long as nothing politically destabilizing was in circulation, the common people were allowed their entertainment. It was a win-win for the repressive Queen and for the Stationers with a lucrative monopoly on their hands.

falkvinge.net/2011/02/02/history-of-copyright-part-2-tudoric-feud/

>>>/his/

Fuck linux, we need a new OS called Stalldows or Stallix

No, link wiki.installgentoo.com/wiki/Usenet

GUIX, which uses Hurd, can be the first distribution that can simply be called "GNU". It is the completion of the GNU Project, wholly GNU.

I do understand. But I don't see why you would want to reverse engineer windows when you can just contribute to ReactOS by using the existing already distributed files and sources which are currently illegal to use. Windows is a dying system. Besides, if anyone cared enough they'd take time to reverse engineer it no matter what.
If the law is forcing people to do something then it applies to people.
I'm not wrong about anything. Free software and copyrights are morally wrong and a fucking cancer.
i don't care about licenses. They're directly spawned from the copyright laws, which should be abolished.
I'm also not only talking about software here. Any information (books, videos, music, movies, pictures,...) and physical property (from CPUs and phones to chairs) should not be controlled by retarded totalitarian laws unless they can be used to cause harm (weapon/gun and drug regulations allowing only sane and non-criminal people to buy and sell them are fine). Any law that goes against human rights is wrong.

...

Shut the fuck up MPAA shill

Attached: IMG_20190324_231314.jpg (1079x1038, 124.85K)

Then make proprietary software illegal dumbass. You don't need copyright for a blanket ban on things that threaten your freedom.

Please tell me how.

The same way we get rid of copyright.

How?

That really depends how far they're willing to push things.

LARPer

I know what it is, idiot. I'm saying laws shouldn't enforce it or copyright of any kind. "Free software" is just the other side of the copyright coin. Both are equally shit.
I worded it bad and I was thinking of public domain and MIT because I'm not a "free"tard and don't care about GNU and their philosophy. You're clinging to one poorly worded sentence and attacking it as an argument because you know you're wrong in everything else.
Without copyright EVERYONE by default has the right to copy, distribute and edit software as well as sell the service of providing this software, without the original owners intervention. So basically, public domain. Nothing other than public domain should exist.

"Proprietary software is bad because people don't know what they consume, just like proprietary food is bad because people aren't allowed to check their food for poison/drugs/unwanted substances. Therefore source code MUST be released to the public at any time otherwise your software will be considered illegal and you'll be penalized."
You can say something like that.

Abolish copyright as a right and redefine intellectual property as information which you haven't disclosed. You're literally asking how to change laws. Get enough people and influential people to vote against this. (You) can't do anything yourself.

You have shown multiple times that you don't know what it is.
You're something even worse: an actual retard.
The public domain doesn't respect my freedoms, though.

It does by not forcing anyone to do anything. You just want to remove other people's freedom. You GNUtards are all insane.

You were claiming that you understand Free Software. You don't.
Yes. I want to remove other people's freedom to remove other people's freedom.

What if we build an EMP Bomb for Brussel and let them feel how we feel.

We stop them from working, as a Part of punishment to show them what Censorship is to us.

A little abstract idea. But it would function.

How about an actual bomb instead of a meme bomb?
I'm of course just joking, GSG 9. I'm not actually considering to bomb politicians.

It's too late for you

Attached: Breach.mp4 (1920x1080, 7.78M)

I would agree with you 5 years ago, it was a complete clusterfuck, but nowadays it's not.

hypothetically and more realistically one would probably be more likely to get results from writing a virus that would target eu infrastructure

Advice on good client?

Be careful OP. Many lleftypol shills lurk in here and make sure not to trigger them.

Excellent.

An actual answer: Hail Hydra
Cut off one head and five take its place.
Tell me how difficult it is to pirate Zootopia in 1080p.

Got any suggestions better than Tor, or just as good? Because we could use some input, time is running out to save the free Internet and if we are all too stubborn then we get no where. So do you know of any better alternatives? If so nows the time to speak up.

Well then call it fascism, the threats are really the same. Doesn't matter what despotic label you slap on it.

PS: both communism and fascism suck ass and its the governments/bureaucrats who are the ones who always RUIN capitalism for consumers!

YES! ME!

DO NOT TRUST TOR IT IS VERY VULNERABLE! ALWAYS USE A VPN AND WINDOWS BECAUSE LINUX IS FULL OF BACKDORS 2

I use a private VPN and linux OS (an older linux OS)... and the only Windows computer I have has Windows XP installed but its offline (I only use it for ripping DVDs/CDs and converting media formats).

Nothing is just as good because among all those Tor is the best documented and the only finished protocol.

Nigger, changing the definitions of "sane" and "non-criminal" is trivial for the governments. Take Britain as an example, where calling someone mean things will label you a criminal.

You mean the government?
You mean state monopoly isn't communism?

It doesn't matter who is taking away your freedom, a bourgeois is still a bourgeois. Also implying that big corporations aren't the government.

No it isn't. Communism is about decentralising the means of production, whereas monopoly is giving the power to a few people - polarization of the society.

Right-wing propaganda works huh? It is easy to call everything you disagree with a communism. It's like I would call mosquitoes proprietary, because I don't like proprietary software.

you have never lived in a communist or even socialist country.

Holy shit are you stupid...
Communism is about seizing the means of productions.
That means the government (after a communist revolution) takes control of them.
That is called centralization! However in this case it never works out because the means of productions tend to be specialized so they are too complex to be to be run by one fucking ministry.
Furthermore it never takes into account that an economy should adjust to production and demand.
No it has and failed.
Just so you know. I'm not a capitalist.
They are. Nature never gave you source code. Just compiled binaries called DNA. However it is not illegal to reverse engineer them.

What's true for mosquitoes is also true for you. I hope you kill yourself now out of self-hate.

exactly this!

What kind of god damn retard are you?
If they all go from multiple powers to the hands of one power, it centralization. Are you brain dead or something?

cant you see im agreeing with you? im not the user arguing with you.

Ups. It's because you made a blank line. My brain automatically groups blank line people together at this point.