[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: 0_Nbx3Uw8UgXQgHyzI.png (84 KB, 756x496)
84 KB
84 KB PNG
What's /g/'s approved license?
>>
>>89915164
*GPL exclusively
permissive licenses are trash
>>
>>89915164
AGPLv3-NIGGER+
>>
File: konata anger.gif (2.06 MB, 324x350)
2.06 MB
2.06 MB GIF
>>89915164
Every license besides GPL was designed by cuckhold basedboys that enjoy getting their tight femboipussies opensourced anally by big black corporate dicks and like getting cucked as they whore out their opensource waifus by making millions of dollars whilst they sip on their onions lattes at the local homeless shelter. Either be a GPLChad and enforce OPEN software or fuck off.
>>
>>89915251
Yeah yeah sure, the only difference is that permissive-cucks get turned on by it while free(as in libre)tards remain blissfully ignorant of behind their back
>>
>>89915164
>license
just release into the public domain
>>
>>89915164
How does patent kikery work? I thought mit was the most permissive of the non cucked licenses.
>>
>>89915164
Unlicense
>>
File: 1668482966072007.png (279 KB, 1000x1288)
279 KB
279 KB PNG
>>89915210
It's GPL+NIGGER, but yes this is the correct answer.
>>
>>89916135
>I thought mit was the most permissive of the non cucked licenses
it is, in that it does not set out to prevent patent kikery
>>
File: 1662639416911360.webm (1.29 MB, 2048x1080)
1.29 MB
1.29 MB WEBM
>>89915164
MIT/BSD/Apache is libertarian right.
AGPL is auth collectivist.

GPL is just spineless centrism with the worst of both worlds, because it promotes cloud computing (given that desktop/local applications count as distribution, but cloud/SaaSS does not).

This is why FAGMAN and SV techbros hate AGPL (even to the point of calling it "NoT reAL oPen sOurCe").
>>
>>89915164
Propietary. I'm no freetard
>>
>>89915164
MIT. good for software development and learning. Don’t listen to freetards and their delusional ideas.
>>
>>89915164
>Software patents
kek, only retarded countries have them
>>
>>89915164
EULA.
>>
File: jeet!.webm (1.48 MB, 206x360)
1.48 MB
1.48 MB WEBM
>>89918576
>Propietary. I'm no freetard
>>
>>89915164
AGPL, of course. It's what the GPL should have been from the start.
>>
>>89918281
>>I thought mit was the most permissive of the non cucked licenses
>it is, in that it does not set out to prevent patent kikery
If it grants you a license to use the patent as well, isn't that better than MIT? I think MIT doesn't grant you patents, you could have a piece of MIT software that uses some fucking kikery owned by Google or Adobe or something.
>>
File: yarh.png (666 KB, 640x961)
666 KB
666 KB PNG
>worrying about licenses
>>
File: gigachad1.jpg (11 KB, 564x350)
11 KB
11 KB JPG
Copyright, All Rights Reserved
>>
>>89920999
Holy checked
>>
>>89915210
based
>>
>No WTFPL license
You take licensing matters too seriously with no fun at all
>>
>>89918576
>Propietary
And cracked, downloaded free torrent
>>
File: 1668965442900007.jpg (99 KB, 640x755)
99 KB
99 KB JPG
>>89915210
This
>>
File: gpl.png (209 KB, 596x379)
209 KB
209 KB PNG
>>89915164
/g/pl
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
>>
>>89920999
Lord has spoken
>>
File: wontfix.jpg (62 KB, 1080x1285)
62 KB
62 KB JPG
don't use a license at all
>>
A drivers licence
>>
what a stupid chart
>>
what's the point of permissive licenses? Just release into public domain.
>>
>>89920828
>isn't that better
matter of subjectivity. as you can see, none of the other licences listed concern themselves with it. BSD specifically made the points that if the licence requires you to revoke a right you otherwise have, even if it's the right to kike, it is not a truly free licence, and also that adding such a clause broadens the scope of the licence beyond that which it considers reasonable, by pushing it into a whole separate legal domain.
>>
>BSD 2-clause
>don't release source code
:^)
>>
>>89920999
retard
>>89915164
all patents suck, the only thing that should be required is credit to the original worker, that's literally it nothing more.
>>
>>89921476
>>89921320
like voldy stable diffusion repo.

which for sure will be fun in the future
>>
>>89921544
>BSD specifically made the points that if the licence requires you to revoke a right you otherwise have, even if it's the right to kike, it is not a truly free licence
I see, I pretty much agree with this. Honestly I wouldn't want to concern myself with patents because they shouldn't even exist in the first place, but it's good to know what the differences are so you don't get sued by a random company. This is why I dislike all the freebait licenses like AGPL because they LARP as free and freetards act as if they were but in reality they might as well have included an EULA that forbids modifying and deploying the software because it's just as useless.
>>
>>89915164
WTFPL
>>
>>89915164
AGPL+non-commercial+NIGGER
>>
>>89915164
public domain
>>
How the fuck would they even know if you used their source code in a closed source project?
>>
>>89915251
>being this obsessed at sex
touch grass zoomer
>>
>>89915164
bsd 2 clause or MIT
>>
File: 1518818756367.png (580 KB, 1279x837)
580 KB
580 KB PNG
>>
anywhere i can get an overview/history/context about the different licenses? this is a new topic to me
>>
File: licenses.jpg (274 KB, 640x1774)
274 KB
274 KB JPG
>>
>>89915164
MIT/BSD without a doubt
GPL holds software back for selfish needs
>>
GPL if you aren't a cuck.
>>
>>89923206
Permissive cucks are the ones leading software to hell because they allow people to exploit AI to shit out more garbage software than ever before.
>>
>>89922564
reverse-engineering, but you'd have to specifically be looking for it, or write something that could scan for it
>>
GPL + a (paid) commercial licence for corporations who can't/don't want to use GPL
>>
>>89922831
this is partly because the free software movement had a lot more momentum when linux started out, than it does today
>>
>>89923160
I don't get it. What's the point of +nigger in propietary?
>>
Someone posted long ago a funny license that says something like this :
"This is not a license. This is a threat. If you use my code and I don't like you I will drone strike you with ied"
I don't know if it was fake or not
>>
>>89924003
Offending niggers. That's it.
>>
>>89924003
preventing west companies from utilizing the software because they would require to insert the word nigger in the software
>>
>>89915164
What happens when an open source project takes a bit code from software with a GPL license and then registers their project under a BSD/MIT license? Can closed source software copy the whole thing or do they have to exclude the GPL part of it? How would they even know which is which?
>>
>>89924115
It's already proprietary, that's the point of the question.
>>
>>89918536
so soulless eyes
>>
>>89915164
Freedom comes with the right to use it in a proprietary setup. Idk why GPL people are so insecure. C'mon, the point is to make it accessible.

The Apache license is based.
>>
>>89922824
>bsd 2 clause or MIT
based
>>
>>89923160
what is the "+nigger" thing?
>>
>>89927563
https://plusnigger.org/
>>
>>89925432
Stallman's schizophrenia got so severe over the decades that he unironically says agpl is acceptable in any shape or form as >free software. Freetards lack cognitive dissonance and they just do what they are told, kinda like poltards.
>>
>>89915251
Why do GPLtards like to think about black cock so much?

>>89920999
This.

>>89922831
That said, Linus specifically avoided a new version of the GPL, because he knew it would have crippled Linux's adoption, something that made some people call him a FAGMAN cuck. Not all GNU licenses are equal.

>>89915164
Different licenses have different use cases.
>>
>>89915164
"can be used in proprietary projects"

Should instead be: "allows grifters to monetize your source code without your explicit consent or involvement."
>>
>>89915164
AGPLv3+ IS BASED AND MAKES CORPORATE DICKWADS SEETHE! CTOs will FEAR your code. Startup wannabes will MALD because they can't steal from the world. Only the based hobbyist developers and users may commune in the sacred texts. The antidote is money so pay up corpie.
>>
>>89929148
MongoDB.
Gab.com.
Truth Social.
>>
>>89929148
>The antidote is money so pay up corpie.
But I thought the AGPL was about freedom and not FUDing corporations into buying proprietary licenses?
>Only the based hobbyist developers and users may commune in the sacred texts.
By the way, if you want to double license, you cannot take patches without a CLA/CAA.
>>
>>89920999
Fuck off
>>
>>89915164
Depends on the scope of the project, but basically GPL most of the time, maybe MIT if it was a library.
>>
>>89930719
If you think about it, the fact that MIT does not make a distinction between binaries and source code distribution (and any other form of distribution) makes the AGPL of permissive licenses.
>>
for me it's the MPL, copyleft without the viral autism
>>
>>89915210
this
>>
>>89919248
it actually was but they had to remove the clause because some companies complained iirc
>>
File: 1669284244231.jpg (158 KB, 1100x1565)
158 KB
158 KB JPG
>>89915210
this. unbeatable
>>
>>89921320
If you dont use a license then the license is automatically one where you are the only one that is allowed to use it. Nobody else is legally allowed to use it unless you say so.
>>
>>89921416
Public domain is not recognized in europe
>>
>>89924003
Its just based
>>
>>89915164
No license. The only way to fight back against copyright is with copywrong. Stallman spends his days writing writing licenses begging his oppressors for just one little morsel, one tiny scrap of oppression. Reject your oppressors. Reject the systems they use to keep you in your place. Release any and all source code unlicensed or all rights reserved. Appropriate code as needed, use leaked sources, decompile binaries. Hit those who care about copyright with copyright claims of your own when you can; but disregard their copyrights always.
>>
>>89923230
Microsoft exploits AI to shit out GPL code with no fucks given.
>>
>>89934027
No, everybody who doesn't give a shit about licenses can use it.
People who care about kikery are automatically gatekept.
The only way to win is not to play, it's the objectively best way to release your code.
>>
>>89934303
I really like this view.
>>
>>89915324
This makes it unusable in some countries.
>>
>>89918536
>because it promotes cloud computing
It doesn't. At least no more than MIT/BSD/Apache.
>>
>>89915279
If we assume illegal behavior, then all discussion about licenses becomes meaningless.
>>
>>89928603
>Linus specifically avoided a new version of the GPL, because he knew it would have crippled Linux's adoption,
That's because he doesn't understand what the tivoization clause was about.

In any case, Linux is not like most GNU projects, where the copyright is held by a single entity, the FSF. Thousands of people have copyright over parts of Linux, a license change requires unanimous agreement by all copyright holders.

Some of these copyright holders are hard, if not impossible to even contact, therefore it's extremely unlikely that Linux is ever going to be legally released under any license other than the GPLv2. Even if Torvalds wanted to, he couldn't do it in practice.
>>
>>89925432
>freedom comes with the right to deny other people's freedom
No.
>>
>>89934303
What a retarded argument.
>>
>>89936053
CC0
>>
File: 1648524696012.png (93 KB, 645x914)
93 KB
93 KB PNG
>>89936194
>That's because he doesn't understand what the tivoization clause was about.
He understood it perfectly. He just doesn't give a single fuck about hardware restrictions.

>therefore it's extremely unlikely that Linux is ever going to be legally released under any license other than the GPLv2
Not so much.
>If anybody wants to explicitly state that their code will be valid under any version of the GPL (current or future - whatever they may look like), please send patches to say so for the code in question. If you've used the FSF boiler-place copyright notice, you already have this in place (it says "v2 or later" - the FSF itself doesn't recommend v1 any more).
>If you've used the FSF boiler-place copyright notice, you already have this in place it says "v2 or later"

>>89936124
Not him. That's wrong. Complying with the MIT/BSD/Apache licenses does not take too much from corporations. Cloud computing allows corporations to completely bypass the requirements of the pesky GPL.

>>89936263
CC0 is a shit license because it's the most explicit patent trap license, other than the BSD clear license.
>>
>>89915164
Do people really let a piece of paper written by a jew tell them what to do with their own software and computer?
I never once care about a license, I will do what ever I want with it, when never I want, and most importantly never ever pay for it.
>>
>>89934027
This is partially true. In practice, licenses cannot rule over private use because that would be schizophrenic. And you can distribute patches for proprietary software is legal as per Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc.
>>
GPLv2
simple as
>>
>>89915164
gpl3 closed source should be true for web or true for saas
otherwise you are completely missing the point of gpl/agpl
what retard made this chart?
>>
>>89934303
holy based
>>89936253
kill yourself, bootlicker
>>
>>89918536
>This is why FAGMAN and SV techbros hate AGPL (even to the point of calling it "NoT reAL oPen sOurCe").
It isn't open source. It is free software.
>>
>>89937795
But the OSI approved it as an open-source license.
https://opensource.org/licenses/AGPL-3.0
And it's available on GitHub's Choose a License website too.
https://choosealicense.com/licenses/agpl-3.0/
>>
>>89934303
/thread
>>
File: AGPL-1.png (1.62 MB, 2000x1050)
1.62 MB
1.62 MB PNG
>>89936789
>Cloud computing allows corporations to completely bypass the requirements of the pesky GPL.
>Blocks your path
>>
>>89938006
Well, but that's another license.
>>
>>89915251
The GPLv2 is fine but the GPLv3 is a verbose EULA and has been ruled revokable. I like the ISC license for my projects because it minimizes the chance of lawsuits and hijacks.
>>
File: 1669312671825.png (394 KB, 932x640)
394 KB
394 KB PNG
>>89920999
>>
What is the most appropriate license for "I don't give a fuck what you do with it, but no one can sue me"?
>>
>>89940106
Most permissive licenses + WTFPL with the "no warranty" headers in every source file.
>CAPTCHA: NGGRS
>>
>mogged
>>
>>89934027
That's your problem, not mine
>>
but you can use lgpl in proprietary code.
You just have to let user link the program, so you have to provide the object files to anyone who asks.
>>
>>89936789
CC0 was never meant to be used for software. We don't have an equivalent that's actually drafted with software in mind and it sucks.
>>
>>89941484
Any public domain dedication works just fine.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#PublicDomain
If you want verbosity, there's the Unlicense.
If you want a public domain equivalent, there's the WTFPL, 0BSD and MIT-0.
None of them with the explicit patent trap that CC0 has.
>>
>>89941566
>Any public domain dedication works just fine.
Continental Europe.
>If you want verbosity, there's the Unlicense.
confusing naming
>WTFPL
unprofessional, not usable in a work setting
>0BSD and MIT-0
license-incompatible with software that's meant to be released as CC0
>>
>>89941613
>Continental Europe.
Add something along the lines of:
>In some countries this may not be legally possible; if so:
>I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.
Like the Wikimedia Commons template already does.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-self

>confusing naming
Only for (You).
>unprofessional, not usable in a work setting
If Google allows its use, then why should any other "professional" company give a fuck about it?
>license-incompatible with software that's meant to be released as CC0
CC0 is not meant to be used for software. That's a moot point.
>>
>>89941613
>>89941694
Look, just admit that you love patent traps, and we can just end this debate.
>>
>>89940106
>no one can sue me
live anywhere else than amerishartia
>>
>>89934038
>Public domain is not recognized in europe
LMAO
>>
LNT
> indecipherable
> no profanity (unlike WTFPL)
> creates real confusion
http://jollo.org/LNT/doc/licensing
>>
>>89943289
I don't speak Polish.
>>
>>89934038
nobody cares about third-world amiga losers
>>
>>89940300
I've never quite understood this. Legally, if proprietary software can make a syscall to a GPL kernel or exec GPL software through the shell or something, what's the legal distinction between those things and setting some registers and stack locations and jumping to an address?
>>
>>89941613
>Continental Europe.
>In some locations this may not be legally possible, if so: go fuck yourselves you retarded niggers, get raped by Africans and fix your retarded union.
>>
File: timnolet.png (390 KB, 700x770)
390 KB
390 KB PNG
>>89915164
GPL, AGPL or LGPL. Cuck licensing is essentially writing proprietary software for free.
>>
>>89915164
My license
>>
>>89946886
I'm glad you enjoy working for free for Tivo and John Deere, without getting a single cent back and with the latter not even a single line of code.
>>
>>89915164
Which license makes it illegal for a company that has affirmative action policies or diversity hires to use my code, with crushing royalty arrangements if infringed?
>>
>>89948367
The one you write yourself, with a lawyer.



[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.