User, what is your preferred software license?

GPL because of freedoms
Public Domain because of freedoms

Are you memeing? If you hold the copyright of something, you can do anything you like with it. Licenses are granted to others so they can use your copyrighted thing under the terms of the license.

Unlicense every time. I believe in 100% Libre software and not software communism like the GPL provides.

Typical lolberg.

If it's something too small to relevant or something I don't care about. The MIT license is simple and allows anyone to just run with it without getting tangled up in obligations.
If it's something actually useful I don't want others to just grab the source and use it for something proprietary.

GPL because fuck code-stealing businesses.
To be less of a shill, The Commons must be protected from those who would parasitically steal and privatize code that was released to the public in good faith. In a perfect world I could release code and all could benefit, but as long as Embrace Extend Extinguish is a thing I have to do all this bullshit.

GPL v3 or later, because noncopyleft licenses help corporations gain the power over software users. Just see all these open sore frameworks and programs, they're always noncopyleft, so (((they))) can make it proprietary, if it is convenient to them. It looks good and they still have the power.

GPLv3, because it hurts the people intellectual property law is enforced by and makes more code open source.

We have this kind of thread every other week.

...

...

I usually use MIT or my own license.

MIT because it's non-restrictive, my own because sometimes I want to cuck people who share my proprietary software

WTFpl.
hardmode: Cause i'm not a faggot who cares about bullshit legalize.

ABRMS, the Anyone But Richard M Stallman license. I like it because it guarantees your software freedom so long as you're not rms, making it a good license for most people.

Apache license, because it protect me against patent issues.

I don't release my code as open source and only use it personally so I never need a license
.t bot developer

If someone's going to shove something up your ass either way. Your choice is to shove up a dildo yourself, or have twenty corporate faggots shove their dicks up your ass. Which do you prefer?

Unless you had your license written by a lawyer, it will be full of loopholes.

Well, that hit a little too close to home.

Maximum Copyleft using AGPL-3 for maximum freedom and least cucking by proprietary software.

Cucked for users, not cucked for you the developer.

AGPL because fuck saasfags

AGPL is the only one with great potential

this
If only GNU had the bigger and better botnet lord to check which ones stole and proprietarized your code so you can legally put them off.

All Rights Reserved with no license file

capitalist kikes will stay the fuck away from the product of my sweat because they're rulecucks and I can DMCA anyone else I don't like that tries to use it

Unlicense, WTFpl, BSD 2.0, MIT, Apache, Apple Public Source, then ABRMS

These kinds of people will always exist, those who don't care about the rules and take the quick way to get a quick buck. The act of reversing other people's binaries is actually a specialist skill within the already specialist skill of writing computer programs. The people who would be the best at detecting infringements are the original authors and the people who specialize in reversing binaries. These people would have to become familiar with the field of software titles that cover the line of functionality that the GPL software covers and then they'd have to compare the functionality of those other titles to the GPL software. To do this is not a trivial task.

This of course for the purpose of preserving freedom.

We don't need licences in a world without IP

MIT

Because it's the only actually free license.

GPL
GPL is a license that self perpetuates freedom.
It's the only license that perpetuates for users/developers the freedom to execute, read, edit and distribute.
Besides that we can't note that the GPL has a very good compatibility scheme, it's compatible with most popular licenses.
Bedsides the WTFPL which is a meme license, basically all permissive licenses like the MIT/BSD.
MIT and BSD are license that are essentially a do what you want license like the GPL. With the exception of ==BUT== but only if the developers want too. Thus the freedom developers have acquired with the MIT/BSD can be removed for you. Biggest example of that is the MINIX3 microkernel which is used on all Intel motherboards and fucking with everyone.

This.

...

BSD license.

Because I want to sell my folk software not to reveal its source code.

Here's a example with a bucket.
GPL
Everyone can use, study, copy and share this bucket even the ones that are copied/modified.
MIT/BSD
Everyone can use, study, copy and share this bucket. But only if the developers wants too.

The reason for why food is not a good example is that it is not duplicable like a tools. You have to wait for it to grown. That's something communists haven't figured yet.

By your retard logic I have now deprived you of something despite you have strictly more options now.

The reason why the GNU GPL exists is to dissuade people from forking GPL software into proprietary software. Having the objective increase in proprietary software choices is not an ideal supported by the FSF. People are free to operate the GPL software and study the software as much as they want. People are free to distribute copies of the GPL software as long as they haven't forked the software into a proprietary software distribution. If the software is forked into a proprietary software distribution, the GPL licensee will forfeit their distribution license under the GPL.

Yeah user applies all the same

Maybe we should reinstate slavery, after all it's just giving more options. You just want to set yourself up as the proprietor of software that people depend upon to extract rent from them. You offer and heavily market a seemingly appealing (thanks due huge venture capital) "option" that gets wildly adopted to prevent a public solution from ever gaining traction by being "lesser" seen from an individual, short-sighted perspective, even though if everyone would invest into that instead everyone except the current leeches/owners would be much better off. With the amount of money Europe is pouring into MS for example we could easily have made free alternatives just as good without having to perpetually pay rent and be treated like slaves, but it is the path of least resistance to continue as is and with all the money MS has they can just lobby the government to let them keep their fangs in us.

This. Neoliberals can not imagine that some do not think as they do. Stallman says that he would not want to forbid proprietary software and that people should simply choose to reject it. That would be ideal, but in reality people are retarded and think what the people with the better propaganda machine tell them to think, so if I were in power I would forbid proprietary software and let everyone who tries to make it anyway be hunted down.

As long as it is strictly one more voluntary option. Anyone should be allowed to kill themselves, sell themselves into slavery, take cocaine, etc.

...

Obviously dual MIT/Apache-2.0
github.com/autumnai/rust-cudnn/issues/10

1. Free will doesn't exist
2. Even in practical terms people are not free because they need basic things like housing and sustenance to survive, so nobody who has any other option would "voluntarily choose" to become a slave.

The rich would just fire people from expensive regular employment contracts with social security etc. and just rehire them as slaves because it would be cheaper. They would also only need to hire some of them back since they can increase workload and use the starving homeless people who chose not be slaves as pressure.

pic related agrees

t. Google

Attached: Milton Friedman.jpg (257x242, 9.92K)

Have you ever considered that you would have the freedom to work for someone else, including yourself?

I agree :^).

...

1. All the others would do it too, or they get outcompeted
2. Modern production with high complexity and degree of labour division is not almost always not feasible for an individual. And even if it is, large corporations have economies of scale on their side and can thanks to their huge capital reserves always undercut you until your business can not survive anymore.

What a stupid example, firfox is Free Software. You can't use the sane control panal on win10 and have to use that mobileshit. Wher is your freedom to change it?
Nice strawman there you neoliberal weasel. Labour is productive and necessary. Parasites diverting part of the produced wealth to themselves without providing labour in exchange and only a fraction to the worker are neither necessary nor worth of being let alive.

What so you are going to go get it from someone else? Great! Now fuck off.
Which is why I don't use it.
I can edit the binary or use an alternative like this Linux machine I am not.
I am a advocate of modern Chinese communism actually.
Agreed.
Yes I agree. Lets kill the elderly and welfare whores. They are a drag on society.

Even many workers don't produce anything tangible. A lot of things are busy work, or just bureaucratic hurdles or similarly useless things when you get down to it. But that's not all. Look at all the software, even most hardware made today: it's utter garbage. There's no net benefit to anyone except those who gain from the sales in an unending cycle of shitty products designed to fail and be replaced (built-in obscolescence). They have no reason to make good long-lasting products, because that would kill future sales.

And yet you choose to post here.
Same thing as air and water. By your logic I guess you're slave to trees and rivers.
Topkek this is only true to people who can't even use a rock to cut a fruit. Or in some feudal system where you can't harvest a piece of land for yourself. Or that 100% of the population is against everyone and people who think that are either schizo or depressed.

That's true. Production is currently done in a way to maximize profit instead of serving actual needs of common humans. Machines from the DRR still last to this day, while modern crap dies shortly after the warranty runs out, the failing point careful chosen as to minimize
lifespan while reducing warranty cases.

So because something happened it must have been a choice? Does the rain chose to fall down?
No you can't be slave of non-humans, they do not prevent you from accessing them. If they privatized the water supply you could be slave to the "water owners" though.
This is pretty much where things are going though. Have you seen the recent developments in land prices?

I totally agree.

How does the user get cucked by any *GPL?

MIT.
It doesn't make it hard for people to use my software.

GPL is strictly restricting my freedom. For example if I want to upload a binary to my website for people that is illegal.

You can distribute binaries, but you must also provide the source code for your customized version of the software.

why can I relate to that bear, I'm not even fat

So again, I want to upload a binary to my site and that is illegal.

If someone said, "you are free to go into the park, but you have to go down the slide 50 times if you do" that is known as a restriction of freedom compared to "you are free to go to the park".

In the very detailed scenario you have laid out, it is completely legal for you to upload a binary of a GPL licensed program to your site.

As soon as you distribute software, that is not the act of a user but a distributor. The GPL does not restrict your freedom as a user. The GPL restricts your authority as a distributor and that is not a matter of your freedom as a user.

No it is not. I will be sent to the courts for not doing a bunch of extra shit.

Right so if a license totally banned distribution that would not be restricting the users. After all that is an act of distribution. Great idea.

protip: the GPL is not a usage license, it is a software conveyancing license

I don't understand how you can take the time and effort to distribute a GPL binary program but you cannot attach the associated source code to the distribution. Truly, this is a mystery for the ages.

TLDR: Banning all distribution would not be restricting usage.

I could. I don't want to.

/dev/null

I hope most of the people here are memeing in semantics. Because otherwise it's fucking sad.

Well, duh, just don't do evil then and you'll be fine.

You GPLcucks sure have a warped sense of morality.

Not at all. It is people who distribute proprietary software have a warped sense of morality. Just don't distribute proprietary software then and you'll be fine.

...

*unironically
#fuckdeletion

That's actually a strawman argument. I'll tell you my actual position: distributing a proprietary Firefox binary is evil.

What is not a strawman is that user cucking gpl makes uploading a Firefox binary to my blog illegal.

Wow lad

That's outright false. There is no lawyer who would argue this interpretation and expect it to be accepted. That's because the GPL doesn't work that way.

This is still a strawman

It sure as fuck works that way. You are not allowed to distribute a binary without also including the source.
Which part specifically.

You're acting idiotic because you like your little argument that you came up with. Don't get too attached to it because it is pure shit. Of course you can distribute a binary of a GPL program. If you have made no modifications the source is accessible to the user from the place where you got the source. If you re-brand the program or make other modifications, yes you better fucking provide the source code you fucking leech.

gpltards actually believe this should happen

WTFPL because fuck you

Who gives a shit man, just use the license you think is most appropriate for the software you're making, and stop putting MIT licenses on your stupid bash scripts on github.

I agree. GPL shills will hate you for this though.

A link to the source is enough, you braindead retard. NixOS' build systen pulls source codes straight from the... eell, the source. They do not mirror it and so far they have had no problems distributing the binaries.

In case you do not link the source, you are ways politely asked to hand it. A "surprise trial" would go nowhere when you can claim human error and provide the link then, so nobody does it, not even for trolling purposes.

nice try user

Once again, you're still committing a strawman. Uploading a binary is not illegal. Distributing a copyrighted work without authority is illegal.

This is correct. GPL licensees are perfectly allowed to upload a GPL binary to their blog. What licensees are not allowed to do is to distribute a proprietary GPL program.

No you fuckwit. Uploading a raw firefox binary to a blog is NOT legal. And your insane license is what prevents this.

Are you retarded? This has nothing to do with the GPL, but the fact that the Firefox branding is proprietary. See the bindist USE flag in Gentoo.

Ah user great! I did not realize the GPL allowed me to distribute an executable without providing access to the modified source. I will tell my buddy Bill Gates at Microsoft and we will take advantage of that!

this is genuinely what license fags believe. Uncuck your homosexual mind retard.

MIT, public domain and maybe LGPL because:
1. afaik there is no real way to prove that someone is using your gpl code in his closed-source software so you might aswell use something permissive that wont cuck the people that actually want to follow your license
2. people should use free software because they want to and because it is moral, not because they are enforced
3. software projects should be made for joy of the creator and user with honesty and not as means to sell your propaganda

CC0 or MIT

BSD
-Simply because of results. It's the best of both worlds. FOSS, but corps are allowed to do what they want as well and take a top down approach and force a particular Vision TM. To this day, nothing in GNU world has made as solid of a desktop OS as OS X.. or game console like the PS4 (I think even Nintendo's Switch uses BSD as well).

Yeah, BSD has many commercially successful gadgets. But Linux also includes Android that is the most successful mobile OS!

I release my shit under BSD, MIT or TAPR-OSHL

Why:
I like proven licenses with freedom in them. GPL and it's variants have annoying restrictions, so I don't use them for my personal projects.
I don't particularly care what people use them for, thus BSD.

Android is less and less free. Google as been steadily transferring more and more functionality from AOSP to their proprietary layers.
In the name of compatibility, security and usability.

You keep engaging the troll/retard. He keeps saying lies and at no moment has pointed to the license itself.
The GPLv3 is certainly longer than BSD or MIT style licenses, but it's no bank contract; it can still be read in a few minutes.

>gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html

In other words, you can provide access to binaries, but you have to point to the source code as well. Either you provide the source code in your server, or you link to a server where the source code is available.
The section 7 of the GPLv3 points to additional terms such as requiring that *derivative* works don't use the trademarks of the base work, but for *verbatim* copies there's no such restriction. If you do a small change that doesn't merit a complete rebranding (e.g. removing Pocket from Firefox), then the Firefox people *could* ask you that you clearly mark your Firefox version as a modified one instead.

Aka for the 50th time uploading a binary to my blog is illegal. Your license says it right there. Inb4 it does not count becausee you can also do xyz.