LULZ / Misc

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

What's the license you usually use and why?

I'm a coder and I strongly dislike GPL, the idea behind it is so fucking 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.

  1. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

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

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      based, I'll copy this behavior

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      very based

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      Simply the best.

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

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

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      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.

  2. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    https://plusn-word.autism.exposed/

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      This

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      Is +n-word a GPL compatible license?

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        +n-word 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.

        • 9 months ago
          Anonymous

          Woah thanks, I'm illiterate when it comes to this.
          I'll make sure my next project uses +n-word.

          Goodbye future jobs. 🙂

  3. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

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

  4. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    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.

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Peer Production Licence

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        lmao the way he puts a pause before chud and pronounces it very distinctly as chud

  5. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

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

  6. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    >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.

  7. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

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

  8. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    Apache 2

  9. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    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.

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

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

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

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

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        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.

  10. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses

  11. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    >i strongly dislike GPL, the idea behind it is so fucking 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.

  12. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

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

  13. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    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.

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      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.

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

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

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        >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.

  14. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    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 glowfags is to glow even harder.

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      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.

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        Not him. Web browsers.

        • 9 months ago
          Anonymous

          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

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape_Navigator#Origin

  15. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  16. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    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.

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

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

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        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 fucking 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, fagman 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

  17. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    https://copyfree.org/content/standard/licenses/coil/license.txt

  18. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    > 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.

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

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

  19. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    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 fag was getting $0.01 per chip running his shit

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      Nothing is stopping you from creating a license like that.

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        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.

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        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.

  20. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

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

  21. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    When did MIT replace the BSD license?

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

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

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        But Google uses the BSD license for Chromium.

  22. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  23. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

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

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      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.

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        i don't know what the issue with npcap is

        • 9 months ago
          Anonymous

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

        • 9 months ago
          Anonymous

          https://github.com/nmap/npcap/blob/master/LICENSE

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

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

            • 9 months ago
              Anonymous

              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?

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

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

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

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

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                >No
                Okay.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                Should have used ms-pl

  24. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    GPL license is basically DRM for the code and DRM is fucking retarded.

  25. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

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

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

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

  26. 9 months ago
    kitsu

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

    Anything else is for retards.

  27. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    Apache2

Your email address will not be published.