Which license do you pick for your intellectual property (code, content, etc) and why?

Home Forums General & off-topic Which license do you pick for your intellectual property (code, content, etc) and why?

Viewing 43 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #97463
      Anonymous
      Guest

      What’s the license you usually use and why?

      I’m a coder and I strongly dislike GPL, the idea behind it is so freaking stupid. you’re basically trying to "infect" other people’s code with your political ideas by using it. But I also think that MIT, BSD and similar licenses are a bit too permissive, so idk.

    • #97464
      Anonymous
      Guest

      I leave my code unlicensed to filter the scrotebrains who believe in the intellectual property psyop.

      • #97573
        Anonymous
        Guest

        woke af, I’ll copy this behavior

      • #97584
        Anonymous
        Guest

        very woke af

      • #97603
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Simply the best.

      • #97613
        Anonymous
        Guest

        woke af
        there should be a license that forbids using the the code if you read the license

      • #97628
        Anonymous
        Guest

        I mean if you have no license, it defaults to the most restrictive interpret of intellectual property in favor of the owner (you). So if you’re saying you’re "filtering" people by forcing them to break what you consider an illegitimate law, that’s fair enough. Is what I would say if you had any code anyone wanted to use.

      • #97744
        Anonymous
        Guest
    • #97465
      Anonymous
      Guest
      • #97471
        Anonymous
        Guest

        This

      • #97567
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Is +scrote a GPL compatible license?

        • #97570
          Anonymous
          Guest

          +scrote is compatible with every license. It’s simply a clause that does nothing but obligates licensees to add a couple of meaningless words to all reproductions of the license.

          Something that people don’t seem to understand is that a license is something that you GIVE people.
          You, the author, always retain full intellectual ownership over the product unless explicitly given away.
          Licenses are simply an agreement to not sue someone for using your software, as long as they submit to some conditions.

          • #97611
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Woah thanks, I’m illiterate when it comes to this.
            I’ll make sure my next project uses +scrote.

            Goodbye future jobs. 🙂

    • #97466
      Anonymous
      Guest

      I just use MIT, it’s simpler than using some donut steel modified gpl license.
      Makes people more inclined into using your code too

    • #97467
      Anonymous
      Guest

      The Peer Production Licence. It is similar to the GPL but it prohibits big businesses from using your software; the idea is that you can then sell them a separate licence on the side.

    • #97468
      Anonymous
      Guest

      I leave it unlicensed because no one wants to use my code so who cares

    • #97469
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >you’re basically trying to "infect" other people’s code
      and that’s a good thing. There’s no reason for any software to be nonfree.

    • #97470
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >giving a shit about licensing
      I just take what i want they will never know

    • #97472
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Apache 2

    • #97473
      Anonymous
      Guest

      I use Ms-PL, it’s a better version of BSD license, that’s been intentionally made incompatible with GPL. That ensures that your code will always be available both for open source and commercial usage for everyone besides stallmanist commies.

      • #97474
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >BSD license, that’s been intentionally made incompatible with GPL
        freaking great. I’ll be using this license in all my projects.

      • #97494
        Anonymous
        Guest

        This actually sounds pretty woke af, it’s what GPL should have been. I will be using this from now on.

        • #97502
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Source code distributions must be (at least) licensed under the Ms-PL as well. It’s like the GPL, but the source code release is optional. It’s the only creative Microsoft FOSS license, the Ms-RL is literally the same as the MPL.

    • #97476
      Anonymous
      Guest
    • #97478
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >i strongly dislike GPL, the idea behind it is so freaking stupid. you’re basically trying to "infect" other people’s code with your political ideas by using it
      I’m not infecting anything you corporate cocksucker. Just want to have my code STAY free and open.

    • #97480
      Anonymous
      Guest

      I only use the hippocratic licence (https://firstdonoharm.dev/version/2/1/license/) so people calling people scrotes may not use my code.

    • #97485
      Anonymous
      Guest

      My favorite is when they literally give away the right to relicense their software but only to whatever FSF trannies want by saying you can relicense the code under a later version of GPL.

      • #97487
        Anonymous
        Guest

        That’s only with GNU Projects, and not anymore for the GCC (Stallman was cucked out of the project he created, and they stopped requiring copyright assignament to the FSF) and, if I’m not wrong, glibc. The copyright holder can decide whether or not move to the next license, Blender and MediaWiki remain being GPL-2.0-or-later.

        • #97497
          Anonymous
          Guest

          I was talking about independent projects that willingly add a clause that allow fsftrannies to decide what happens with the code later

        • #97531
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >Blender and MediaWiki remain being GPL-2.0-or-later.
          Which, for better or worse, is what killed the Blender game engine.
          I mean it was kind of a shit engine and outside the scope of the project and its core useful features (physics sim) basically got rolled into Blender, but the GPL license stopped people from making games on it.

    • #97492
      Anonymous
      Guest

      I use GPL when I don’t want anyone making money on my ideas.

      I use MIT when I want to destroy specific companies, ensure my ideas have market dominance, and legitimize concepts that otherwise get applied to "criminals" by the establishment.

      The only solution to glowscrotes is to glow even harder.

      • #97533
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Post a real world example of freeware replacing paidware, it doesn’t have to be your software specifically.

        The only example I can think of (kind of) is Blender and that hasn’t really replaced the paid software so much as been a haven for people tired of Autodesk’s shit.

        • #97535
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Not him. Web browsers.

          • #97541
            Anonymous
            Guest

            When were there paid browsers? I guess Internet Explorer in that you have to own Windows, and you could extend that to other proprietary software like AOL’s browser or Prodigy’s browser, but even BBS "browsers" were free

        • #97747
          Anonymous
          Guest

          You misunderstand.
          Using the MIT license to conquer domains doesn’t have to be displacing existing commercial competitors.

          The MIT license can be used to popularize protocols and new concepts, which can be used to obsolete other existing industries through sheer hype (see crypto and finance). Though I won’t talk about my actual target for plausible deniability.

    • #97496
      Anonymous
      Guest

      I release my code under the MIT license. I’m not interested in peoples changes and I have better things to analyze every line of their pull request. If you use my code in a commercial product I don’t really give a flying fuck. Permissive licenses are true freedom and the whole reason I use a permissive license is so that some fat fuck doesn’t try to GPL it and subjugate people.

    • #97500
      Anonymous
      Guest

      unlicensed
      it’s about time this to realize than noone will ever need or use your trash besides students, your license does NOT matter.
      you’re not the main character in a disney movie (thinking of free guy the garbage movie that was released recently), you’re insignificant, your code does not matter and noone but google bots will ever browse your repo, the licence is irrelevant.
      you will never earn money with it and noone will ever steal it.

      • #97539
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Amazon has made a shit ton of money off free code, idiot.

        • #97562
          Anonymous
          Guest

          so what?
          some people win the lottery, it does not mean you will ever win it too.
          most people spend their entire life waiting for htier turn and it will never freaking happen, it’s the same for your code.
          amazon or whoever else will never read your shitty threadpool implemention for C++, they also don’t give a shit about your C string lib, get back to reality, you’re noone and your projects are steamy hot garbage, noone will ever use it.
          we’ve been constantly reinventing the wheel since the 90s, barely any "new" tech is actually new, scroteman only bootstrap their shit with soem rando code sometime, they would have doen it without it if needed anyway, it’s not that your code matters, it’s mostly laziness from the devs, I know it, been there, done that (not amazon in particular but many billion dollar company).
          you should grow up and stop with these "what if" scenarios that never happen

    • #97506
      Anonymous
      Guest
    • #97523
      Anonymous
      Guest

      > You’re trying to "Infect" other people’s code

      No, I’m not. This would imply that the GPL can spread like a disease out of the blue. This isn’t the case. The GPL only applies to other pieces of software that use the GPL code. If someone decides to use my code, it’s because they went out of the way to include my code in their software. They have to agree to a deal in order to do that. That’s not them getting "infected", that’s them having to settle for a deal to use my code.

      • #97525
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >that’s them having to settle for a deal to use my code.
        Basically your code has aids.

    • #97527
      Anonymous
      Guest

      There really needs to be a license that’s like "Free to use if your program is free, if you make a for sale program you need to give me a cut to be negotiated via a contract" license

      Imagine if that MINIX scrote was getting $0.01 per chip running his shit

      • #97529
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Nothing is stopping you from creating a license like that.

        • #97537
          Anonymous
          Guest

          What’s stopping people from creating licenses is lack of judicial precedence.
          Lawyers hate blazing trails because it means more work.
          That’s why "MemePL + some bullshit" is mildly popular, and "OCDONUTSTEELPL" is only for meme software nobody uses.

        • #97540
          Anonymous
          Guest

          It sounds like there actually is one like that, the Peer Production License, but I haven’t heard of it until now and didn’t actually stop to read it.

          >make your own license
          I have no idea what the legal requirements are in order to establish a legally binding license agreement (that will actually be upheld in court).
          I’ve found like two examples of times where a company used a GPL (or similar) license to make money, and the end result was they settled out of court.

      • #97753
        Anonymous
        Guest

        just dual license it, gpl for the freedom people and some commercial license for paid

    • #97553
      Anonymous
      Guest

      When I was young and full of hope, MIT.
      Now that I hate everyone, AGPL.

    • #97565
      Anonymous
      Guest

      When did MIT replace the BSD license?

      • #97589
        Anonymous
        Guest

        When googe started pushing it ultra hard so mugs would write free code for them.

        • #97596
          Anonymous
          Guest

          But Google uses the BSD license for Chromium.

    • #97579
      Anonymous
      Guest

      GPLv3. the fsf did linus wrong and he was right to leave it at v2 for his purposes probably, but unless you’re writing a kernel there is no reason to care abour the tivoization clause and otherwise v3 is a very good license. my big project uses agpl because its (and im trying not to get myself doxed as a LULZ user here) of a class of programs that is often (but not always) run on servers and served to users over the internet, so without the affero clause it might as well not even be gpl.

    • #97582
      Anonymous
      Guest

      MIT/Apache 2.0 because it gives users the most freedom while still being a real license unlike unlicense/wtfpl

      • #97588
        Anonymous
        Guest

        What about the users of those users when they decide to add restrictions downstream? Tough shit I guess. See npcap as a real world example.

        • #97592
          Anonymous
          Guest

          i don’t know what the issue with npcap is

          • #97593
            Anonymous
            Guest

            he’s saying that they had the freedom to change the license to GPLv2.

          • #97595
            Anonymous
            Guest
            • #97597
              Anonymous
              Guest

              failing to see where any of this is my problem or mit/apache

              • #97598
                Anonymous
                Guest

                Hence why I said "Tough shit" is the attitude you hold. npcap is a fork of winpcap with a restrictive license that prevents modification and distribution. The original winpcap was 3 clause BSD. Where the fuck is the freedom now?

                • #97599
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  >Where the fuck is the freedom now?
                  Not him. Is there anything stopping anyone from forking the original project?

                  • #97636
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    No, but enjoy re-implementing 8 years of work because they decided to use a cuck license.

                    • #97640
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      >No
                      Okay.

                • #97605
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  Should have used ms-pl

    • #97601
      Anonymous
      Guest

      GPL license is basically DRM for the code and DRM is freaking scrotebrained.

    • #97607
      Anonymous
      Guest

      licenses don’t real. all code that you can see is free code

      • #97608
        Anonymous
        Guest

        yeah ok Microsoft GitHub tell me when the next iteration of Copilot comes out

    • #97624
      kitsu
      Guest

      For Casual: YMGv2 or WTFPL
      For Work/Proper Projects: MIT

      Anything else is for scrotebrains.

    • #97632
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Apache2

    • #97644
      Anonymous
      Guest

      I public domain it all

      I do say to please let me know how you use it, out of personal interest.

    • #97648
      Anonymous
      Guest

      give me apache or guve me death!

    • #97652
      Anonymous
      Guest

      GPLv3
      If I’m feeling especially saucy, AGPLv3+scrote
      Really sick of the cuck licensers in this thread. I hate copyright too but GPLv3 is the only plausible way to reasonably sustain software freedom

      • #97655
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >Really sick of the cuck licensers in this thread.
        Keep seething.

    • #97659
      Anonymous
      Guest

      If you’re talking about libraries then yes, MIT and Apache make sense otherwise nobody would ever touch your library. But for complete products, AGPL makes more sense. You don’t want some poopyhole to steal and rebrand your product, outspend you and sell the product as proprietary.

      AGPL and SSPL, which is not approved by the FSF glowies unfortunately, are the only way to protect open source from being stolen.

    • #97685
      Anonymous
      Guest

      what’s a license that has a static linking exception but forces fuckers to keep it open a la GPL, but without the drawbacks of the GPL, MPL? I lobe GNU but once something goes GPL it can never be anything else

      • #97716
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >I lobe GNU but once something goes GPL it can never be anything else
        That’s not true. Double or triple licensing is very much a thing, as long as you only use your own code.

    • #97712
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Is this the new cuck license shill thread?

      • #97718
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Permissive licenses are the only suitable ones for video game development-related software. Fuck off.

    • #97720
      Anonymous
      Guest

      CC0. I don’t give a fuck what you do with my publicly available code.

      • #97722
        Anonymous
        Guest

        If you are going to release source code to the public domain, don’t use a license with a very explicit patent trap.

    • #97724
      Anonymous
      Guest

      I only have 3 rules:
      >If the project is for self-education, not good enough for practice
      NO LICENSE
      >If I’m making a library
      MIT/BSD LICENSE
      >If I’m making a FOSS
      GPL/AGPL/LGPL LICENSE cuz i don’t want to be a cuck.

      • #97725
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >no license
        no license means proprietary, no non-small company can legally use your code

        • #97751
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >If the project is for self-education, not good enough for practice
          remember this line.

      • #97756
        Anonymous
        Guest

        this is good

    • #97745
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >whats the license you usually use for your code
      Unlicense
      >and why?
      Don’t care

    • #97746
      Anonymous
      Guest

      If I think it’s useful: MIT
      Otherwise: I don’t. If someone cares they can email me asking and I’d probably do MIT but of course no one ever would.

      So basically no license.

    • #97748
      Anonymous
      Guest
      • #97752
        Anonymous
        Guest

        The fact that Luke Perry thinks that a license could stop Intel from using MINIX to implement the wet dream of any government tells me that he is an absolute scrotebrain. By the way, firmware distribution is still binary distribution, so they should have included the license, but they didn’t, because they never going to comply with whatever license MINIX had. This is the real reason they used MINIX:
        >My understanding, however, is that the small size and modular microkernel structure were the primary attractions.
        Tanenbaum is however a cuck if he worked for Intel for free:
        >I knew that Intel had some potential interest in MINIX several years ago when one of your engineering teams contacted me about some secret internal project and asked a large number of technical questions about MINIX, which I was happy to answer. I got another clue when your engineers began asking me to make a number of changes to MINIX, for example, making the memory footprint smaller and adding #ifdefs around pieces of code so they could be statically disabled by setting flags in the main configuration file. This made it possible to reduce the memory footprint even more by selectively disabling a number of features not always needed, such as floating point support.

    • #97749
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Which MIT license are people talking about?
      Cause MIT has dozens of licenses, including proprietary ones

    • #97750
      Anonymous
      Guest

      As for what I’d use, GNU All-Permissive for trivial code or files less than a few hundred lines, LGPL if I want to contribute content to a nonfree game (ie maps and map events) and GPL for my own stuff.
      2-clause BSD and Expat are fine by me to use, I’m happy to incorporate any GPL compatible code if people want to use different licenses too

    • #97754
      Anonymous
      Guest

      I don’t give away my hard work for free, because I’m not a cuck

      • #97757
        Anonymous
        Guest

        open source is a business model, scrotebrain. There are countless startups who use open source to sell extra close source features, enterprise support, dual licensing or to test or even destroy a market.

    • #97759
      Anonymous
      Guest

      The GPL is used by the NSA for all their big open source software projects.

    • #97760
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Nobody here programs, you are asking a pointless question.

Viewing 43 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.