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.

Jealous of what exactly?
Software proprietors want users to remain helpless and many people (both users and proprietors) are often confused about software that permits freedom. With proprietary software, users are not implicitly permitted to use software as they desire, users are not implicitly permitted to study and improve the software as they desire.
You may be correct about the implementation of GNU software being less than optimal. The point of GNU isn't technical superiority, the point is to permit users to live upstanding lives and cooperate with their communities. This cannot happen with proprietary software.
... Which is the same damn thing in the end.
No. The argument put forward was, "GPL derived software must be licensed under the GPL". The reality is that, "to convey GPL derived software, the software license must not conflict with the GPL (aka be compatible with the GPL)".
I haven't. I've deliberately written that nobody ever got rich by selling GPL'd software.
I was addressing this argument,  "3. Give up the right to make Money with __your__ Software". When people say 'make money', they mean that they want to get rich. If they didn't want to imply getting rich through software, they should use the language, "earn a living".
If you wouldn't have skipped history class in school, you would know that communism made more people poor than it made them "wealthy".
That's great, but the GPL still has nothing to do with communism. The only thing that the GPL does is ensure that the user has permission to live a good life and cooperate with their community.

>>46
The point of the GPL is to give users permission to use the software, study and improve the software, share the software and contribute to their community. The GPL is not about opposing the idea of intellectual property. Opposing the idea of intellectual property is a different discussion not related to the GPL.