Yeah it's really unlike a cuck to give away their product for "free" and then when someone else "steals" it have the FSF legal team sue them for violating copyright law, keeping the profit for themselves while you don't see a dime.
Pozzing the licenses
Jayden Campbell
Jack Diaz
the cuck license argument is not convincing to me. to be cucked is to have your wife cheat on you. you presumably only have one single wife. so for your one single wife to be defiled causes a kind of irreversible damage to her and your status as a man.
on the other hand, software is not a singular item. another man can defile your software and you do not suffer any damage because you still retain a clean copy of it. would you be cucked if a man defiled your wife's identical twin? her clone?
unless you want to sell your software, i see little value in the gpl versus public domain. the gpl does, however, force people keep the gpl. you cannot, for example, re-license gpl'd software.
the big concern for gpl people is that a large company will "steal" their software, improve it, close the source, and sell it. this concern is not well-founded. the gpl wants to force anyone who alters the code to contribute. do you really want microsoft to contribute code to your project?
i think that if a large company wants to "steal" your code then you should let them. if the tenants of free software are so great then they will trump that kind of behavior. companies will "steal" your code, maybe. but you and the other devs will continue to use and improve the code. users will prefer the real thing, not the costly "rebranded" version.
if a big company were to "steal" linux what would happen? the devs would not quit. the users would not quit. anyone who gets introduced to linux through the "stolen" version will quickly find out they were duped and switch to the real one.
Brayden Barnes
...
Oliver Reyes
Only the copyright holder can sue for license violations. The FSF cannot do shit if you did not transfer copyright to them.
That's not how it works. Let's say I write libpooinloo, Microsoft takes it and makes changes to it. They have to give these changes to people when they ask for it, but I am under no obligation to merge those changes into my own libpooinloo. What I could do is look at those changes, improve upon them and incorporate my own version.
"Stealing" means they take it and make it proprietary, never giving back what changes they made. If Microsoft took libpooinloo and added support for Microsoft Office files without giving anything back it would undermine the point of Free Software. Now anyone who wants to use libpooinloo for Microsoft Office files has to use the proprietary version. I have basically been working for free for Microsoft only for them to swoop in, grab my work and give me nothing in return.
Ian Young
What about cases such as these?
en.wikipedia.org
Jace Bell
kek
Lmao what? all they did is sell drmed cfw and modchips.
Yes (((biggots)))
Carson Sullivan
The concept of intellectual property was a mistake.
Cooper Martinez
You have no idea what you're talking about. No one will switch "to the real one" because the fake one is already fulfilling all their needs. That isn't how things work in the real world. It's the argument how capitalism will lead to the poor being lifted up by the rich making better technology. Most people stay about where they are no matter what happens at the top.
William Morales
No, it makes it worthless posturing that is impossible to enforce. The license grant in question is made of three main parts:
This is a binding and legal release of certain copyrights.
This is also binding though it will prevent you from relicensing.
This can be simply ignored - it's discriminatory wishful thinking most likely against the laws of most jurisdictions. Not to mention it would be impossible for the author cuck to provide proof of in court, most likely.
Remember, you're only bound by terms that are compliant with local laws. If some clauses are blatantly against the law, for example being in conflict with a legislation prohibiting discrimination on ideological/worldview grounds, the law will always override the contract.
Wyatt Martinez
This is open sores, not free software.
You can't relicense code that isn't yours.