Stallman Cranks Dat Soulja Boy!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=7C6r6fG4k40

>>80
IF IT'S PUBLIC DOMAIN IT'S NOT EXACTLY STEALING NOW IS IT YOU STUPID FUCK

>>80
no. you still have the code. you don't have their modifications, but you wouldn't have those anyway under the gpl unless either 1) they decide to distribute it for free (probably not gonna happen) or 2) they decide to sell it and you buy it (you probably won't be able to afford it, since you're a penniless hippie).

Wait! If your code is x86 assembly, GPL won't allow you to remain in freedom. Your software will become proprietary, and FrozenVoid! will eat your penis with a x86 assembly procedure.

>>83
Yes, because I made it public domain.

GPL specifically considers all modified code to be under GPL and publicly available
[Citation needed]

>>88

Even FrozenVoid! does it.

>>90
Cite the license faggot

>>90
Obviously, but FrozenVoid! has written another GPL, strictly more freedom-oriented than stallman's regular GPL. He called it GPLfv, where fv stands for "fucking valorisation". You may expected that fv stands for FrozenVoid!... wrong.

>>91
It's not stealing if it's public domain.

>>94

Unless written (obviously in x86 assembly) by FrozenVoid!.

>>96
GPL specifically considers all modified code to be under GPL and publicly available
You are wrong if this is your proof. 10/10 for making me fall for you.

>>98
I understand all of it. Nothing in that paragraph implies that modified GPL code is considered both under the GPL AND publically available.

>>100-103
That's four in a row. Cut that shit out.

I'm a shaaaaaaaaaaark suck my dick

>>100-103
Read it again. That section does not imply that _{modified GPL code is considered GPL code}; that section does not imply that _{modified GPL code is considered publically available}; that does not imply that both these things are happening to modified GPL code.

Here is a hypothetical to where this quoted section applies:
1. Person X obtains the GPL3 software, Foobar.
2. Person X modifies Foobar and calls the result Bazqux
3. Person X conveys a copy of Bazqux (and associated code) to person Y

This section implies : person Y will receive the whole of Bazqux under GPL3. The section does not imply: make a modification to Foobar and therefore, your modifications are considered under the GPL. This section implies: person Y obtained a copy of Bazqux because YOU conveyed a copy to person Y. This section does not imply: make a modification to Foobar and therefore, you modifications are considered publically available.

>>107
I got this section wrong.
Y obtained a copy of Bazqux because YOU conveyed a copy to person Y
I meant to write
Y obtained a copy of Bazqux because Person X conveyed a copy of it to person Y

>>109
You can license your modifications as you wish as long as the license for the modifications does not conflict with another part of the license.

>>110
Sorry, that didn't come out as well as I hoped.
You can license your modifications to a GPL program in any way you wish as long as the licensing terms of the modification does not conflict with any part of the GPL.
Fixed.

>>112
You are saying:
GPL specifically considers all modified code to be under GPL
This is incorrect. The GPL really says (and I paraphrase): if you want to distribute any modifications to this licensed work, the whole of the work is licensed under the GPL. Do not confuse what you have written and what is written in the license - they are not the same thing. The requirement is (and I'm paraphrasing again):
1. The whole work must be conveyed under the GPL IF you choose to convey a copy of the work to a third party.
2. The licensing terms accompanying any modification must not conflict with anything in the GPL.

The easiest way to do this is to license the modification under the GPL.

>>113
Disregard that, my english skills are deteriorating because of my increasingly lojbanic mind.

>>112
You are saying:
GPL specifically considers all modified code to be under GPL
This is incorrect. The GPL really says (and I paraphrase): if you want to distribute any modifications to this licensed work together with this licensed work as a whole, the whole of the work will be available under the GPL. Do not confuse what you have written and what is written in the license - they are not the same thing. The requirement is (and I'm paraphrasing again):
1. The whole work must be conveyed under the GPL IF you choose to convey a copy of the work to a third party.
2. The licensing terms accompanying any modification must not conflict with anything in the GPL.

The easiest way to do this is to license the modification under the GPL.

>>116
I don't understand your question

>>119
There is no such thing as a GPL license, the GPL license is just a set of terms that must be followed.

Therefore I assume it would be valid to use a different license that has the exact same meaning, while it may be worded differently.