Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

Troll forks

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-16 18:19

Stick GPL on other people's BSD and public domain code.

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-16 18:19

/polecat kebabs/

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-16 20:42

Produce a script that converts all valid C code to functionally equivalent code that makes liberal use of GOTO

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-16 20:43

Make every variable a long long, and when chastised, claim it's for 'compatibility reasons'

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-16 20:44

Insert a backdoor.

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-16 20:46

They did this with some driver and the OpenBSD folks got butthurt.

What happened to ``freedom of choice''? OpenBSD faggots and GPL faggots = monkey same.

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-16 21:25

>>6
Because RMS and the fat faggot retards at the FSF and LKML are going to take credit for their work and proceed to shit it up with ugly bloat, then tell people that it was OpenBSD's fault.

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-16 21:46

>>6
BSD lets users choose to distribute software under other licenses.
GPL takes away that freedom to choose.

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-16 22:21

>>7
take credit for work
bloat up the work
it's openbsd's fault

>>8
So why should the OpenBSD folks get butthurt about that?

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-16 22:48

>>8
I agree, but then why complain?

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-16 23:01

>>9
GNUtards abuse the freedom they are given to take away the freedom of the users. It's not illegal, but it's immoral as fuck.

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-16 23:11

>>11
Isn't that the point of liberal freedom? Why should it be immoral to do something that they know full well could possibly happen? I don't see the BSD people complaining that Apple took Darwin and OpenBSD as a part of OS X.

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-16 23:14

I will make a license "Anti-GPLBSD Modified" that will be BSD but will not allow to change the license unless you're the owner of the software.

Isn't this perfect? Why haven't anybody did it yet?

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-16 23:32

Daemon forks the original BSD-licensed code.
FORK MY ANUS

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-16 23:42

>>12
You know full well that murder could possibly happen. Does this mean that murder shouldn't be immoral?

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-16 23:46

>>12
I think this post sums up their attitude pretty well:
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119769638425153

Basically, the OpenBSD crew are fine with evil corporations using their code and making it proprietary, because they'd prefer that to Apple or IBM writing their own shitty implementations.
But, at the same time, they dislike GNU and the GPL because of a difference in principles, so to take OpenBSD code and sublicense it under the GPL is fine as per of the terms of the license, but it's a dick move.

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-17 0:17

>>15
lol morality. gb2church, ``faggot''.

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-17 0:28

>>16
I still don't get why it's a “dick move”. If people forks a free BSD licensed software and licenses the fork under the GPL, how is it more of a sin than some other person who forks that same free BSD licensed software then makes it completely proprietary? In one case, the fork is free and in the second case, the fork is now proprietary but apparently, the free GPL fork is the “dick move”.

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-17 0:36

>>18
Because it fragments the project. If someone wants to implement the GPL'd improvements, the GPL infects the entire driver.

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-17 0:39

>>18
GPL is not free. It's pretty much equivalent to any other proprietary, freedom-restricting ``shared source'' license.

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-17 0:41

>>20
This. For all their complaints about semantics, the FSF chose a pretty loaded and ambiguous word.

GPL is anti-proprietary. It has its uses, but it's far from ``free''.

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-17 0:49

>>20
I can see the source to all GPL software I have, I can share the GPL software with whoever I please. Therefore, the GPL is free.

>>19
The GPL doesn't infect anything. What is required is that in order to distribute binaries derived from GPL code, the non-GPL section of the code must be compatible with the GPL. Besides, what's the problem in fragmentation in the free software world?

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-17 0:52

>>21
It's not enough to say “I support freedom”. There needs to be a definition by which to judge the apparent freedom of an individual. “Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. With these freedoms, the users (both individually and collectively) control the program and what it does for them.

When users don't control the program, the program controls the users. The developer controls the program, and through it, the developer controls the users.

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-17 0:56

>>22
You're not free to do what you want with the GPL, so it isn't entirely free. Whenever I show /g/ idiots and RMS fanboys the WTFPL or the public domain, they're blown away by how much freer than the GPL they are (and the fact it has an epicly kewl name in the case of the WTFPL).
What people don't seem to realise is that BSD/MIT-style licences are pretty much equivalent, save the necessary copyright disclaimer.

The FSF don't get to define a subset of freedom and call it ``free''. They're a software organisation, not lexicographers.

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-17 0:57

>>23
Am I free to not mirror already available public source code because my space and bandwidth are limited, without receiving legal notices and death threats?

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-17 1:02

>>25
Yes.

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-17 1:03

>>23
See >>11. The whole point of taking BSD code and relicensing it under GPL is to control the users and take away their freedom.

>>22
There are licenses that allow distribution of unmodified source code, but prohibit distributing modified versions of it. You may want to think about revising your definition of ``free''.
Also, the pleasure of being forced to give a fucking sermon every time you distribute GPL code.

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-17 1:04

>>26
Wrong. Mirroring code like this is a GPL requirement:
http://archive09.linux.com/feature/55285?theme=print

I got mixed up in my example, though. I can't remember who it was who received death threats. There was some heated argument on a blog between two people. Might have been the cipherfunk guys.

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-17 1:04

>>26
Not if >>25 distributes even a single binary compiled from the aforementioned source code.
But only for three years.

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-17 1:06

>>27
Also, the pleasure of being forced to give a fucking sermon every time you distribute GPL code.
Hey, that's the price you pay for GNU-quality software!

I think of it like marital conversion: ``Yes, you can marry my daughter! But you have to join my religion first.''
Copyleft is cleverly devious, I'll give Stallman that much. He put his Jewish instincts to good work.

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-17 1:08

http://copyfree.org/

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-17 1:24

Fork ``GPL version X or later'' code and change X to some ridiculously high number.

Name: Sturm Mabie 2012-11-17 1:41

>>7
I'm on ur side. DOWN WIF ULRICH DREPPER!

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-17 1:51

>>20
GPL is not free. It's pretty much equivalent to any other proprietary, freedom-restricting ``shared source'' license.
Actually, yes. GPL protects rights of one world government, while usual licenses protect rights of individual companies. So GPL is the ultimate orwellian monopoly.

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-17 2:08

>>28
Yes, you are required to keep the source available when you distribute the binary. Why should you need to distribute the source when you're not distributing the binary?

>>27
Why is prohibiting modified software also free software? How can a community of software users control the software when changes are forbidden to be shared.

>>34
Cool story bro.

Name: Neru 2012-11-17 8:29

>>19
Thank you. You worded it better than I ever could.

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-17 8:46

Why is prohibiting modified software also free software?
It isn't, unless you're using >>22's definition of ``free''.

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-17 10:16

>>34
Pretty much this.
Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List
All trademarks and copyrights on this site are owned by their respective parties. All comments and posts are the responsibility of their own posters.
- Tinychan + 2ch Mode -