Programmers

Programmers are the worst losers in the whole world.  They are
humanity's most useless members.

Unable to do anything since their childhood because of their black
soul and dull conscience they start digging the memory of a primitive
device --- personal computer --- their parents bought to them out of
pity.  These diggings (also called "programming"), which are in fact
nothing but typing meaningless strings of symbols solely to relieve
the pain in an empty and worthless soul, induce the feeling of
euphoria, which, however, doesn't last for very long, and soon it
makes space for more familiar loneliness, tastelessness and
senselessness of existence; such feelings can only appear in a dry and
talentless soul, in a soul can only see emptiness, despair and
unwillingness to live, limited by perishing and ash-like body.

>>40
Except that he can't grammer or spell.

>>39
what of >>35 is non-free?

>>41
or spell
1/10

>>42
all the GPL shit.

>>44
HOW DARE YOU IMPLY THAT THE SUSSMAN ENDORSES NON-FREE SOFTWARE‽‽‽‽‽‽‽‽‽‽‽¿¿¿

>>44
Why do you trolls continue to perpetuate that the GNU GPL is a non-free software license? Of course it's restrictive compared to the MIT or two-clause BSD licenses, however it's restrictive in the sense that code must remain free for all who would want to have access to said code. IHBT

>>46
The GPL is freedom at gunpoint, even for the people who can only survive as slaves.

>>46
the GPL is free as in rape.

>>46
They don't understand the GPL, and they think it implies they have to release the source to their entire program if they use a GPLed library. It's an inferiority complex thing; they're dreadfully insecure about the quality of their code, and they cry themselves to sleep over the thought /prog/ might make fun of it.

>>49
so i can use a GPLed library and release both the source and a statically linked binary of the entire program under the two-clause BSD license?

>>50
So your point is that you want to release the source but because the name of the license of part of the source is different it's somehow less free?
As long as you remain open source, the BSD and GPL (and MIT etc.) licenses behave identically. They only differ when you want to move to closed source, and all the GPL does in that case is require you to provide the source of the linked library (but not your own code) upon request.

>>47
You call these people ‘slaves’, as if to poke a hole in our analogies. Yet we never claimed that these people are slaves — indeed, the GPL is not intended to protect software developers¹ — how can they be slaves if they would divide and subjugate others through proprietary software? Surely they would be better labelled as ‘slave traders’ — it is their unfortunate users who would be slaves.

As I see it, there is a somewhat controversial choice between
 • granting all users the central freedoms² _{(adding restrictions to what developers may do in the process)}
 • allowing software developers to build and distribute derivative software freely _{(possibly denying users the central freedoms)}
GPL advocates choose the former, judging the risk of users being denied the central freedoms to be too high. BSD advocates presumably value something else more highly than the central freedoms. Perhaps they think the users should have the choice to decide³.

Maybe you'll still think me insane (or just idealistic), maybe you'll say “YHBT LOL I TROL U”, but still I hope this helps you better understand my viewpoint.

______________________
_{> ¹In this freedom, it is the user's purpose that matters, not the developer's purpose²
² http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html
³ But really, the GPL doesn't restrict the user's choice too much here — the user may still choose proprietary software, just not proprietary software that is derived from free software.}

As long as you remain open source, the BSD and GPL (and MIT etc.) licenses behave identically.
so people can redistribute the binary without the source even if it uses a GPLed library?
some people might not want to download a 500MB package just to get a 1MB binary. and i doubt anyone is going to want to follow the GPL's requirement to keep the source around for three fucking years to give to anyone who asks for it if you distribute the binary without the source.
unless the GNU project is willing to pay me $200 a month to store that ancient code, that is...

>>53
three fucking years
ancient code
God, do you trolls not even try anymore.

>>52
there's a flaw in your logic. developers are users.
you deny basic freedoms to those users who actually contribute back to the community, without granting any additional freedoms to those who don't.

>>54
code from 3 years ago is ancient.
copyright on software should expire after 1 year at most, and probably closer to 6 months.

>>53
so people can redistribute the binary without the source even if it uses a GPLed library?
What the fuck does that even have to do with the text you quoted?

>>52
The "slaves" thing was a metaphor. And metaphors are like cars: They only work properly until you run out of anti-frees.

>>57
if people can't do that, then BSD and GPL do not behave identically.

>>59
You're talking about distributing binaries, not source, dipshit. But yes, you can do that. You just have to make the code for the GPLed library available upon request.

>>60
i'm not talking about distributing the binaries myself. i'm talking about allowing others to distribute binaries.
and the GPL requires those other people to keep the source around for 3 years, without providing any compensation to cover the cost of storing 500MB of code for 3 years.

>>61
What cost? Just leave it on your hard drive, it doesn't cost you anything at all.

>>55
there's a flaw in your logic. developers are users.
Of course developers are users. And being users, developers are granted the central freedoms just as anyone else. Developers/users are free to study the software (freedom 1), ad improve/redistribute improved versions (freedom 3).

But developers are more than just users, because they intend to distribute what they develop. And we wish to ensure that they too respect their users' freedoms. Because if they did not, they would be harming the free software community.

you deny basic freedoms to those users who actually contribute back to the community
Which basic freedoms are those? The freedom to subjugate other users? We certainly deny that, as well we should.

You seem to have a strange definition of “contributing back to the community”. I wouldn't define releasing non-GPLed (or similarly unfree) derivative software as contributing back to the community of free software users that created it.

>>62
hard drives cost money. especially since they don't last forever.
i've only had four hard drives last three years, and all of them are more than five years old.

Which basic freedoms are those? The freedom to subjugate other users? We certainly deny that, as well we should.
the freedom to grant additional freedoms to users.
the freedom to distribute software without being forced to give up part of their hard drive that they bought and paid for.
freedom of speech.

You seem to have a strange definition of “contributing back to the community”. I wouldn't define releasing non-GPLed (or similarly unfree) derivative software as contributing back to the community of free software users that created it.
you seem to have a strange definition of "contributing back to the community". releasing BSD (or similar)-licensed software is contributing back to the community. releasing antifree GPLed software is taking away from the community, not contributing it.
it's true that real free licenses allow this kind of anticontribution, but doing it and then claiming you're doing the exact opposite of what you're doing isn't just immoral and dishonest, it's fraud.

>>61
You're an idiot.
Software isn't meaningfully open source if all that's being distributed is the binaries, and if the source is made available as well, the point becomes moot. Your three-year comment is a straw man.

LESS FREEDOM IS MORE FREEDOM

>>65
you're an idiot.
we're not talking about whether the software is open source or not. we're talking about whether it's free or not.
the open source or not open source question was already decided. all that's left is the free (BSD/MIT/equivalent) or antifree (GPL) question.

it's not a question of whether or not the source is available. it's a question of whether or not you're allowed to delete the source from your computer after you compile it (without any modifications) and give the binary to someone without giving them 500MB of source code that they don't want.

now, you'll probably say that if they don't want the source code you don't need to keep it. but if they give the binary to someone else, and that person decides they want the source, then the person you gave the binary is legally required to get the source and give it to them. and if they can't get the source from somewhere else, you're legally required to give it to them. and if you don't keep a copy of the source and it's no longer available from where you got it from, you violated the GPL and therefore can't use that GPLed software at all, for any purpose.

>>67
If you have written 500MB of code, I find it hard to believe that you would simply delete it all without storing it elsewhere too.

If you did not write the code, then you can point the other users to wherever you acquired the source code in the first place. The offer of FTP or mailed source code that was originally extended to you is valid for anyone that you distribute that binary to.

It's really not that big a deal, bro.

>>68
lrn2reading comprehension.
the point is that other people might want to give other people binaries but not keep that 500MB of code sitting around.

the situation is like this:
1. i write the code and give it to person A.
2. person A gets the source and compiles it for person B, who only wants the binary.

person A (not me) is required to keep a copy of the source code for three years, in case person B decides they want the source code, or gives the binary to anyone who wants the source code.

>>69
Then include the source code with the binary, kind of like what the Windows installation of Ruby does. What is you're problem?

If you're compiling and distributing binaries, it's not unreasonable to expect you to keep the source around. Distributing binaries without the offer of matching source code is no better than proprietary software.

>>70-71
There's a big difference between distributing a 1MB package and a 501MB package.

>>72
500MB
big
back to /dialup/ please

This is ridiculous. 500MB is considered big? That argument might of held water in the beginning of this decade; you can purchase 1 TB drives for $80-90 (USD) a pop. This guy cannot be serious and must be a troll.

>>74
I takes like a fucking hour to download a 500 MB package through my 1 Mbps ADSL, so yes, I consider it big.

Time to switch services.

>>75
Yeah? well it takes about 60 hours to download a 500MB package through my 56kbps connection.
I hate having to find a torrent for any download over 20MB. I need some wider phonetubes.

>>74
those 1TB drives are fucking huge. unless you can point me to somewhere where i can buy a 1TB 1.5" hard drive for less than 8 XAG...

It only makes sense to keep the source for GNU/Linux distros and such.  Personal users usually don't redistribute anything at all.

It's that time of the year when we are feeling like this all over again.