GNU Sucks

First of all: I like opensource, and contribute to it whereever I can.

But I hate GNU/GPL - Mostly due to it's fascist understanding of Opensource.

Here is what the GPL "protects":

    1. The Author.
    2. Te right of the Author to create deriative work.
    3. The copyright of the software to the Author.
    4. The Author.
    5. The Author.
    6. The Author.

Here is what you have to do, if you link against a Library that is licensed under the terms of the GPL, and you want to make your library publicly usable by other people:

   1. Make it Opensource, so GNU/Jews can steal your aryan technology.
   2. License under the GPL, or GNU/Jews will fucking sue you, so they can steal your superior Technology.
   3. Give up the right to make Money with __your__ Software. (Technically, the GPL doesn't forbid commercial use; but there is only a tiny little bunch of noteworthy Projects that are licensed under the GPL (not to be confused with the LGPL, which is used by Qt, and Qt is very popular, and did infact make people rich)).


So in the end, the GPL virtually enforces Opensource. That's some superb communism right there.

Don't get me wrong, though; The LGPL (Not a typo) is great for Applications, since it doesn't enforce the developer to opensource his software.

All that can be avoided by choosing a better License.
Good Licenses (in this order):
   1. Public Domain (see http://www.unlicense.org/)
   2. Boost Software License
   3. BSD License
   4. MIT License
   5. Apache2 License

Bad Licenses (in this order):
   1. GPL (1 to 3 and higher)
   2. Affero GPL
   3. APSL
   4. LGPL
   5. MPL


Also, I'm a Linuxfag. Ubuntufag, to be precise.

MIT license.

You can't spell "asspain" without spain.

>>1
How is Affero GPL not worse than GPL given your way of rating them (from the degree of freedoms granted)?

>>4
They're more or less equally worse, tbh. I guess that doesn't make much of a difference here.

Are you also a fagfag? An upthebutfag fagfag, to be precise?

>>5
With GPL you can still make modifications and run your modified software through a remote service without having to give the rest of the world your changes, however with Affero GPL, you have to give any change you make, even if the software is for internal use, at least as long as other people can somehow interact with it.

>>6
0/10

Mostly due to it's
Stopped reading right there.

>>1
So you're confused about the GPL. Welcome to 1996.

WTFPL http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/

>>10
Point out one thing he said that was inaccurate, commie.

>>12
But I hate GNU/GPL - Mostly due to it's fascist understanding of Opensource.
If one can't figure out why this is factually incorrect by 2011, one has no credibility in this topic.

Also, back to /b/ please.

>>13
GNU/Zealot detected

>>14 Fuck you, he's not a GNU Zealot, he is...

                                .   .
                               /'   `\
                              //     \\
                             ( ~\\~//~ )
                              ~| @"@ |~
                               '  :  ' .
                      / \~\~\~  \ : /' ~/~/~/\
                     / \        (._.)        / \
                     /   \___-/   ;   \-___/   \
                   /      |               |      \
                  /      /    ---___---    \      \
                  (   ./      \ / __  /      \.   ?
                 /   /  (  --  .|   |.  --  ?  \   \
                 :   ,.  \      \---/      /   / ' :
                | \_/  '   (     \./     ?    \___/,
                  \    `.__ |           | __.'    /|
                |   \      : ---_____--- :      /  |
                      `-___:`---_|_|_---':___-'
                |           /\         /\          |
                           /  \       /  \
                |         /     \   /     \        |
                          |       v       |
                |         |       |       |        |
                |         |       |       |        |
                          \      / \      /        |
                |          |    |   |    |
                            \  /     \  /          |
               |            [  ]     [  ]
                 /  /      \-..-/   \-..-/     \   \
              /            |    |   |    |
                /  /    /   |  |     |  |   \     \    \
            /  ~ ~  ~  ~    :  :     :  :   ~   ~ ~ ~   \
           ~ ~              :__:     :__:              ~ ~
                           (____)   (____)

           _____                          _______   ____  __
          / ___/__  ______  ___  _____   / ____/ | / / / / /
          \__ \/ / / / __ \/ _ \/ ___/  / / __/  |/ / / / /
         ___/ / /_/ / /_/ /  __/ /     / /_/ / /|  / /_/ /
        /____/\__,_/ .___/\___/_/      \____/_/ |_/\____/
                   /_/

 ___       __             _                __   _   _           ___ ___  _
|   \ ___ / _|___ _ _  __| |___ _ _   ___ / _| | |_| |_  ___   / __| _ \| |
| |) / -_)  _/ -_) ' \/ _` / -_) '_| / _ \  _| |  _| ' \/ -_) | (_ |  _/| |__
|___/\___|_| \___|_||_\__,_\___|_|   \___/_|    \__|_||_\___|  \___|_|  |____|

>>13
fuck off faggot

>>13
I'll happily discuss this topic, if you tell me how exactly this is "factually incorrect by 2011".

Starting with GPLv3, the whole thing got worse at best.

>>17
The GPL is agnostic to open source; it does not imply or assert anything about open source. Therefore, it cannot misunderstand open source (never mind have a fascist understanding) as it doesn't deal with it.

>>1 attacks strawmen with his allegation of what the GPL protects. There are more strawmen arguments and non-sequitur, some content-free emotional arguments, more strawmen, more strawmen and more non-sequitur that are supposed to be derived from previous strawmen arguments.

Therefore, I can only conclude that >>1 is either satire or confused.

>>18
Instead of diagnosing >>1, you could also just tell me which points exactly are wrong.

Right now, you sound just like a typical GNU Fanboy.

>>1
U suk and your argument is factually inconsistent and self-contradicting.

>>20
U suk

Back to /b/, ````Faggot''''

>>1
No one is forcing you to use or link to GPL code.

Why do you feel entitled use someone else's work under your own little world view rules. Respect the original authors wishes. Man up, stop whining and write your own code you fucking parasite.

>>21
Fuck off you cock sucking ``faggot''

>>22
No one is forcing you to use or link to GPL code.

I was deliberately referering to cases where people would link against a GPL'd Library. This thread would be pointless otherwise, no?

Why do you feel entitled use someone else's work under your own little world view rules.
That sentence looks like you wanted to type three sentences, but somehow managed to merge them... or whatever.

Respect the original authors wishes.
It's not like I have a choice in case of GPL'd stuff.

Man up, stop whining and write your own code
Oh trust me, I do. Nothing is more satisfying than countertrolling GPL commie jews by rewriting their stuff in a better way, and with a far more liberal license.
 
you fucking parasite.
I don't see how i'm a Parasite. I never used GPL stuff in an unfair way, hence why I avoid the GPL whereever possible.

>>22
Respect the original authors wishes.
People who write GPLed code are invariably insecure cocksuckers and deserve no respect in any form whatsoever.

They're just banding together as a petty attempt at an attack on their betters.

>>19
Fine.
The purpose of the GPL is stated right in the preamble.
The GPL does not require anybody to "open source" anything. It is agnostic to open source and doesn't deal with it.
The GPL has nothing to do with Jews nor theft.
The GPL does not require one to stop making money with software. The language dealing with money refers to very specific cases of software conveyancing.
The GPL does not virally enforce open source. It is agnostic to open source and doesn't deal with it.
The GPL has nothing to do with communism. Communism is a method of sharing society's wealth within the society. It states that the wealth and property of the society belongs to the whole of society. GPL has nothing to do with sharing wealth nor property, it is all about permitting users to practise the intent as written in the preamble.

This thread is worse than JEWS

>>26
The GPL does not require anybody to "open source" anything. It is agnostic to open source and doesn't deal with it.
"open source" -> making the source disponible to anyone.
The GPL is The Forced Sharing of Code.

>>26
It's amazing how you managed to ignore the entire thread.

The purpose of the GPL is stated right in the preamble.
Thanks, Captain obvious.

The GPL does not require anybody to "open source" anything. It is agnostic to open source and doesn't deal with it.
The GPL requires the developer to license his software under the terms of the GPL, if he links against / uses GPL'd parts in his software, when he is releasing it publicly. That makes it practically equal to "enforcing opensource". Learn to read.

The GPL does not require one to stop making money with software. The language dealing with money refers to very specific cases of software conveyancing.
True. In theory. In practice, Nobody ever became rich by selling GPL'd software, and nobody ever will. Even redhat only got rich by selling support, or non-GPL software, but never through Linux itself.


The GPL has nothing to do with communism. Communism is a method of sharing society's wealth within the society.

Quoting the GPLv1: "The licenses for most software are designed to take away your
freedom to share and change it.  By contrast, the GNU General Public
License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free
software--to make sure the software is free for all its users".

Yeah. Doesn't sound like Communism, because it is communism.

>>29
If it isnt state planned and enforced, it isnt communism.

I ignore most of what's written here because these arguments are falsehoods and misunderstandings that have been advanced for decades. I will also mention the name calling and derision that implies jealousy, satire or plain confusion.
The GPL requires the developer to license his software under the terms of the GPL, if he links against / uses GPL'd parts in his software, when he is releasing it publicly.
Wrong; this is a common misunderstanding of the GPL. Protip: GPL derived software must be GPL compatible. The easiest way for this is to license the derivative under the GPL.
>"open source" -> making the source disponible to anyone.
Wrong. Open source is about the public development of computer software. Please don't conflate the method of OSS development with the intent of open source initiative.
In practice, Nobody ever became rich by selling GPL'd software, and nobody ever will.
Please don't conflate earning a living and getting rich. I earn a living selling GPL software, as well as sell services related to the software. I got rich by studying finance, making plans then carrying out my financial plans, not from my software business that sells GPL software.
Yeah. Doesn't sound like Communism, because it is communism.
Are you seriously implying that software equates to wealth?

When your president will publicly announce that from this day everybody in country must GPL and all other software is prohibited as counter-revolutionary, then it will become Communism.

* Are you seriously implying that sharing software equates to sharing wealth?

>>31
>Are you seriously implying that software equates to wealth?
"Wealth" is pretty subjective concept. It is a matter of believing that something worth something for you. If you're in warm country, you wont consider warm clothes as wealth, cuz they're useless to you.

>>33
define "wealth"

>>34
My point is about contending the act of sharing software with the social arrangement communism. I assert the GPL does not imply communism.
If I lend my car to my friend, am I practising communism?
If I share my dinner with strangers, am I practising communism?
If I donate money to scientific research, am I practising communism?

>>35
the state of being rich and affluent; having a plentiful supply of material goods and money; the quality of profuse abundance
I guess with this definition, you can share wealth through software.

define "rich and affluent"
define "material goods"

>>36
>If I lend my car to my friend, am I practising communism?
During Communism, you cant use car without written permission from authorities. You and your friend must use public transport as every good young Pioneer does. Besides, public transport is more effecrive for economy in general.

As long it is free as in free beer, the end user will not care of anything.

/thread

>>37
Your using define wrong, please consult the relevant section of r6rs^₁ and realize the error of you're ways.

[1]:http://www.r6rs.org/final/html/r6rs/r6rs-Z-H-14.html#node_sec_11.2.1