Switch to GPL now

Copyright laws are among the most significant in shaping the world as we know it. Copyright laws are not about entertainment, but rather, about thought control.

As a species we are standing on a crossroads never before faced by any species on the planet.

I argue that the single most significant contributor to our supremacy over this planet is our capacity for meme-exchange. We have taken mammalian peer-learning to an unprecedented level. The fact that every member of our species frequently expends great energy in the singular business of meme-aquisition, and that we spend just as much energy in the business of meme-distribution, serves as a testament to its survival-utility and evolutionary effectiveness.

Are we to embrace this freedom, allow the currents of information to flow unrestrained, and see where our exponentially-increasing rate of technological evolution (which, from a more metaphysical perspective, is not so different from our genetic evolution) takes us?

Or are we, on the other hand, going to lock ourselves down and block this flow, all in the name of preserving the economic prosperity of a select few?

Is our future one of wild change and uncertainty, or one of regularity and control?

Go away RMS Moot.

But I want to sell my software as license based, GPL kinda makes that hard, unless I make my soft almost impossible to compile with cryptic makefiles and dependencies.

I think we can all agree that the GPL could be a shorter license.

I will never allow RMS Mike Shuttleworth to steal my work just because he says I am ``free'' to take his at no cost, but under viral terms hidden amongst legalese, in an attempt to spread his communist ideology.

Switch to the WTFPL now

Copyright laws, and licenses in general, are unscientific and ultimately destructive.

As a species we are standing on a crossroads never before faced by any species on our planet.

I argue that the most significant contributor to our demise will be through entangling ourselves in red tape.

Are we to do whatever the fuck we want?

Or are we, on the other hand, to become slaves to licenses?

Is our future one of freedom, or one of bureaucracy?

                           -- Sam Zoy

>>6
Shouldn't it be ``DWTFYWTPL''?

>>6
ತ_ತ
it's... beautiful

Seriously, the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISC_licence
is the one I prefer, an even more simplified 2-clause BSD license:

Copyright (c) Year(s), Company or Person's Name <E-mail address>

Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any
purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above
copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES
WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR
ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES
WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN
ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF
OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.

The OpenBSD folks use it too.

>>1
why would i switch from a free license to the anti-free GNU GPL Proprietary License?

>>10
GNU GPL Proprietary License
It's not ``Proprietary''! It allows people to share their code. Why must you perpetuate such myths?

nobody likes you, RMS Michelle Stallman.
go away.

>>11
define: proprietary
The word proprietary indicates that a party, or proprietor, exercises private ownership, control or use over an item of property.

All your code are belong to RMS

>>13
All your code are belong to RMS
How so? If it's because the use of GNU GPL'd code is disallowed from being used in proprietary programs that's for philosophical reasons, so that it remains free for all users.

Although, I do find the GPL to be a bit restrictive in that sense, but it's for a good reason.

>>14
No, BSD-licensed code remains free for all users.  GPL code cannot be used freely because it‘s always trying to hijack everybody else‘s code.

BSD > GPL.
Even if your code is incorporated into a closed source project it will still be open source and available to everybody because it's still available in the place in which you originally uploaded it.
When a company decides to use your code do they also tear down your sourceforge page? No, it's still there and the code is still available to anybody who wants it.

>>15
Elaborate, please. How can a license like the GNU GPL that starts out with:

 ``  The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed
to take away your freedom to share and change the works.  By contrast,
the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to
share and change all versions of a program--to make sure it remains free
software for all its users.  We, the Free Software Foundation, use the
GNU General Public License for most of our software; it applies also to
any other work released this way by its authors.  You can apply it to
your programs, too.'' ``hijack everybody else's code''?

>>16
Even if your code is incorporated into a closed source project it will still be open source and available to everybody because it's still available in the place in which you originally uploaded it.

You say ``closed source'', but I don't think it means what you think it means.

>>17
Quit feeding this BSD faggot troll. This conversation has been done to death, and nothing interesting can come of it.

>>18
i don't think i know what you think i think, but you probably think i think something different to what i think i think, i think.

>>19
You're right. Fuck this shit, sage-ing a troll thread.

>>17
that part of the license is like the text on the back cover of a book...
you know what i'm talking about, that paragraph or two written by someone who hasn't actually read the book, but instead just picked out about 15 words at random from the book and tried to guess what the book is about.

>>21
Oh yeah?
Well, I'm free to bump this thread.

>>22
Is that even relevant to the conversation? Or is that just your way of saying ``you didn't read GNU GPL''?

>>23
Yeah, well, you're mom.

>>14
The GPL is restrictive roughly like a set of rules in a sporting match; the rules are intended to keep things fair for everyone.

>>15
The GPL is free for all users. Everybody has the authority to use the software when they wish, everybody has the authority to modify the software when they wish, everybody has the authority to share verbatim copies when they wish, and everybody has the authority to share modified copies of the software when they wish. Also, the GPL doesn't do any hijacking, you are seriously confused about what the GPL does.

>>16
The problem is that people will fork the free software and make it non-free. The original free software will always remain free.

>>17,18
Just ignore the shit from the haters.  The intent of the GPL is so all licensees are guaranteed to possess permission to the four freedom.

>>25

I know exactly what the GPL does, and it prevents users from sharing ``as they wish'', by requiring them to share their own work just because they're using something that was supposed to be free.

BSD promotes the advancement of computing as a whole; GPL forbids it in favor of ``sticking it to the man (i.e. everyone)''.

>>27
What? Well, I never! It's absurd to think that the GNU Project does not love ENTERPRISE QUALITY business.

http://www.gnu.org/software/gnue/project/what.html

>>27
The GPL requires nobody to share anything.

BSD promotes the advancement of computing as a whole; GPL forbids it in favor of ``sticking it to the man (i.e. everyone)''.
Why do you compare the BSD with the GPL, one is a system, the other is a set of licensing terms intended for software distribution?

The GPL requires nobody to share anything.
neither does microsoft's licensing for the windows source code. i guess by your definition windows is free software, too.

>>30
No. The software licensing terms for some of Microsoft's software do not permit me all of my free software rights:
0. the right to run the software for any purpose whenever I wish
1. the right to study and tinker with the software. Access to the source code is a prerequisite for this
2. the right to help my neighbour when I wish. This is right to share verbatim copies of the software.
3. the right to contribute to my community when I wish. This is the right to share my modifications.

Windows doesn't permit me to practise freedom 0 let alone the other three freedoms.

>>29
There is a set of licenses called the BSD licenses.  Clearly, when talking about licenses, BSD can be inferred to mean that.

The licenses aren't mutually exclusive though, and each have their own advantage in different situations.  By using the GPL you make sure that your open source code stays that way, and by using the BSD licenses you make it so your open source code can be used by anyone for anything without many strings attached.

>>31
the licensing for the windows source code allows 0 and 1.
the GPL Proprietary License doesn't allow 2 and 3. once you share it once, you're required to share it with anyone who wants it for three years. that's not "when i wish".

the licensing for the windows source code allows 0 and 1.
I don't believe that Microsoft has ever published to source code to the Windows system. I only know that .

the GPL Proprietary License doesn't allow 2 and 3. once you share it once, you're required to share it with anyone who wants it for three years. that's not "when i wish".
I think you're confused. We're talking about the GPL, the GNU General Public License, not the GPL Proprietary License.

>>33
You've never read the EULA, have you? It doesn't even grant 0.

>>33
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/eula/home.mspx

1.2 Mandatory Activation. The license rights granted under this EULA are limited to the first thirty (30) days after you first install the Software unless you supply information required to activate your licensed copy in the manner described during the setup sequence of the Software. You can activate the Software through the use of the Internet or telephone; toll charges may apply. You may also need to reactivate the Software if you modify your computer hardware or alter the Software. There are technological measures in this Software that are designed to prevent unlicensed use of the Software. Microsoft will use those measures to confirm you have a legally licensed copy of the Software. If you are not using a licensed copy of the Software, you are not allowed to install the Software or future Software updates. Microsoft will not collect any personally identifiable information from your Workstation Computer during this process.
You don't even have the right to freedom 0. Freedom 0 means having implicit right to run the software at any time for any purpose. You must first ask Microsoft's permission before you are allowed to use Windows.

Yes, RMS, you are right, but you are also talking to the same people who tolerated ANONIX.

Good luck.

>>33
once you share it once, you're required to share it with anyone who wants it for three years
Firstly, it's only the source code you have to share. You can still distribute or not distribute the software to whomsoever you like. Secondly, this restriction is necessary to grant freedoms 0 and 1 to everyone.

Though I admit I don't particularly like the idea of having to keep everything around, I think this is more relevant to people who distribute software en masse. It's not like your friend is going to prosecute you for not keeping the source to the tool you compiled 2 years ago.

>>35-36
you obviously haven't seen the licensing terms for the source code.

It's not like your friend is going to prosecute you for not keeping the source to the tool you compiled 2 years ago.
Perhaps not, but any other free software zealot could prosecute you just as easily. Let's face it, folks: The GPL is not a ``free software'' license