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.

>>57
If this is the way the author wants it, why should it be forbidden? ... You are comparing pears to apples here.
No. The point was about how jealousy was related to name calling. A different point I also made is that developers have an unjust power over their users' lives; developers ask users the choice to be helpless. Users cannot live in freedom when they choose to be helpless. The bit I made bold is the whole point of the free software movement: users cannot live in freedom when they accept proprietary software. The points are USER freedom and how developers restrict USER freedom.

it is, infact, the same goddamn thing.
They may be close, they may have the same immediate results but they're not the same thing and it is sloppy logic to think they are the same. GPL original + CC0 derivative as not the same as GPL original + GPL derivative.

I'm not sure if you just don't want to see my point, or you're plainly ignoring it
I agree with the point that, "people have not become rich by selling GPL software", I just didn't word myself to meet that point. I don't agree that people cannot get rich selling GPL software. I might make that my next project just to see if I can do it: establish a software project that is licensed under the GPL and will make me a tidy fortune. Be sure to read news about it in mid 2014 if I happen to start the project mid 2012.

The GPL just adds opensource enforcement to it.
This is where there is confusion: you believe that the GPL is about open source. Please don't define open source to mean, "the source code is visible". The Open Source Initiative proposed their idea as a software development method that'll improve the quality of software developed in such a fashion. The GPL is agnostic to open source development and cannot enforce open source development. The GPL permits private development and usage and therefore is not inherently about open source: open source is about public development of computer software.

But I'm sure a GNU Zealot like you would never understand such a thing.
There again with the name calling. You are confused about my motive. My motive is not about open source: the public development of computer software. My motive is about permitting the USER to practise freedom. Your motive is to publish software that anybody may use and further redistribute at will with or without any morals towards USER freedom. My motive is to promote USER freedom. I personally support the open source projects Haiku, Syllable, Inferno, Minix and OpenSolaris. I license my open source developed software according to the community suggestions, the GPL is merely one choice out of any number of valid choices.

>>58
That's fine, you're not actually deriving from the GPL software when you work in that manner.