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.
I leave my code unlicensed to filter the retards who believe in the intellectual property psyop.
based, I'll copy this behavior
very based
Simply the best.
based
there should be a license that forbids using the the code if you read the license
if you know the name of the license doesn't that also mean you read the license
you lost the [license] game.
this is just MIT
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.
https://plusn-word.autism.exposed/
This
Is +n-word a GPL compatible license?
+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.
Woah thanks, I'm illiterate when it comes to this.
I'll make sure my next project uses +n-word.
Goodbye future jobs. 🙂
I just use MIT, it's simpler than using some donut steel modified gpl license.
Makes people more inclined into using your code too
cuck license
even cuckier license
It depends. Unlicense for sample code and anything with less than 100 SLOC. zlib for middleware. MIT for game engines.
>even cuckier license
Why? It is a copyleft license.
>Why?
Because it makes GPL cucks seethe
GPL is the only license that *isn't* cucked.
Not him. The only non-cucked licenses are the proprietary ones. Why give away your work for free?
all about extracting every last dollar you can, right?
If you are good at something, don't do it for free.
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.
>Peer Production Licence
lmao the way he puts a pause before chud and pronounces it very distinctly as chud
I leave it unlicensed because no one wants to use my code so who cares
>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.
>giving a shit about licensing
I just take what i want they will never know
Apache 2
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.
>BSD license, that's been intentionally made incompatible with GPL
Fucking great. I'll be using this license in all my projects.
This actually sounds pretty based, it's what GPL should have been. I will be using this from now on.
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.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses
>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.
I only use the hippocratic licence (https://firstdonoharm.dev/version/2/1/license/) so people calling people n-words may not use my code.
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.
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.
I was talking about independent projects that willingly add a clause that allow fsftrannies to decide what happens with the code later
>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.
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.
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.
Not him. Web browsers.
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
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape_Navigator#Origin
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.
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.
Amazon has made a shit ton of money off free code, idiot.
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
https://copyfree.org/content/standard/licenses/coil/license.txt
> 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.
>that's them having to settle for a deal to use my code.
Basically your code has aids.
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
Nothing is stopping you from creating a license like that.
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.
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.
When I was young and full of hope, MIT.
Now that I hate everyone, AGPL.
When did MIT replace the BSD license?
When googe started pushing it ultra hard so mugs would write free code for them.
But Google uses the BSD license for Chromium.
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.
MIT/Apache 2.0 because it gives users the most freedom while still being a real license unlike unlicense/wtfpl
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.
i don't know what the issue with npcap is
he's saying that they had the freedom to change the license to GPLv2.
https://github.com/nmap/npcap/blob/master/LICENSE
failing to see where any of this is my problem or mit/apache
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?
>Where the fuck is the freedom now?
Not him. Is there anything stopping anyone from forking the original project?
No, but enjoy re-implementing 8 years of work because they decided to use a cuck license.
>No
Okay.
Should have used ms-pl
GPL license is basically DRM for the code and DRM is fucking retarded.
licenses don't real. all code that you can see is free code
yeah ok Microsoft GitHub tell me when the next iteration of Copilot comes out
For Casual: YMGv2 or WTFPL
For Work/Proper Projects: MIT
Anything else is for retards.
Apache2