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.

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?