[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/g/ - Technology


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: images.jpg (8 KB, 233x217)
8 KB
8 KB JPG
I created a license to control the user instead.
>>
>>100135424
The GPL is okay but Stallman is a disgusting fat commie hippie.
>>
>>100135424
The GPL gives more freedom to users by taking away freedom from corporations
>>
>>100136135
This.
/thread
>>
What do mastodontards /g/tards have in common?
>>
>>100136135
what if i want the freedom to be able to draw a circle
>>
>>100136135
I'm not a corporation. I would like to sell my software for a profit. What does the GPL offer me?
>>
>>100136274
>FOSS = GIMP
the mutt's law of /g/
>>
>>100136791
poverty, which you should accept with grace, goyim. after all, your book tells you that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to go to heaven
>>
the soviet union was the only reason that america ever did anything good
without it they're now collapsing into themselves

>>100136135
bingo

>>100136274
there's no such thing as a circle plato
especially not in a fucking quantized grid of at best maybe ~3000/3000 units
>>
>>100136791
there's nothing wrong with proprietary software
there's nothing wrong with the GPL
there's nothing wrong with writing both
you can write something for the good of people, maybe something for blocking AI spam, or learning languages or whatever, and write CRUDware for other purposes
there is something wrong with milquecucks inetween the two
>>
>>100136791
The GPL allows you to sell your software for a profit. But it must have the source code available. Many companies have made money with this model
>>
I understand why people like the GPL
But I can't help but think that some kind of revenue-based licensing would have been better for foss devs looking back. Something like Unity has, where you pay for it if you make money off of it.
Either foss devs would have made lots of money, or big corporations would have to write their own shit.
And yeah, they could try and pull some speakeasy excuse of "you're paying for the hardware, MacOS comes with it for free!" but hopefully a decent lawyer could make the license immune to that kind of bullshit.
I guess maybe it would be hard to prove that your software was used? Idk, what do you guys think?



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.