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.

>>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.