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.

>>49
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.
If this is the way the author wants it, why should it be forbidden? Same with OSS: If the author wants to release the source, why should it be forbidden? You are comparing pears to apples here.


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)".
... And since there are only very few GPL compatible licenses, it is, infact, the same goddamn thing.


If they didn't want to imply getting rich through software, they should use the language, "earn a living".
I'm not sure if you just don't want to see my point, or you're plainly ignoring it: I DO know the difference between "earning a living", and "becoming rich". And I was stating what everyone already knew: That not a single person will ever become rich by selling GPL'd software, but instead, could only earn a living with it.

The only thing that the GPL does is ensure that the user has permission to live a good life and cooperate with their community.
Other, more liberal licenses do allow the user the same thing. The GPL just adds opensource enforcement to it.

When I release stuff under the MIT License, mostly libraries which are supposed to either statically or dynamically linked, then I do that because I know that some people want to make good money with it. Or because some people don't want to share their algorithms. Whatever reason it may be that makes them decide not to share the source, is fine by me; As this is what unconditial opensource is about; You make your own technology freely available, BUT you don't expect to be repaid by the user (only by the company, if you work for one), be it with the source, or money. The License would allow me to still sell products build upon it; and it would allow other people the same.

But I'm sure a GNU Zealot like you would never understand such a thing.