Copyleft licences are the only true free software licences. All other open source licenses are just proprietariable.
What do those words mean? What is proprietariable and copyleft? Or is that the joke?
Not a joke.
Copy left is like the Robin Hood of the copyright world. Basically, it’s a type of licensing where, sure, you can use, modify, and distribute the copyrighted work, but there’s a catch. You have to give the same rights to anyone else for any derivative works. So, if you modify the work, you can’t just slap a new copyright on it and restrict its use. It’s a way to ensure that the work stays free for everyone to use. It’s pretty popular in the open source community. It’s like copyright turned on its head, hence the name “copyleft”.
proprietariable just means the code can be taken and rerelased as proprietary (no freedoms all rights reserved).
Not pictured: OP and all their classmates failing the assignment and being investigated for plagiarism
Of course gigachad uses a thinkpad
All that really does is guarantee that the professor will catch anyone cheating
would be easier than to try and catch people slipping eachother code, no?
gets thrown out along eith all his buddies.
“Free” achieved!
GPL is too restrictive. I prefer MIT/CC0/BSD 0 clause.
None of these licenses give patent protection to your users. If you’re going “permissive”, you should use Apache.
I rarely run into patents but I could see that being a strong argument for Apache.
Why is too restrictive?
I don’t like how it forces everything it touches to be GPL. Even if the works it touches are unrelated to the original functionality. It restricts what I can do with the code I wrote without the help of the GPL’ed code. For example, if I write an entire game: gameplay, physics, renderer, networking, etc., all myself. Then I need to include a snippet of GPL’ed code for any reason, all that work now no longer belongs to me. I, the worker, no longer have access to the fruit of my labor. Instead all of it, disproportionally, is given away to the collective world. I lose the fruits of my labor.
With others, I do not. You can give your code to the community, you can even adopt licenses to say if you improve the code you must also open source it and give it to the community but when you then say and you also have to give away any code it touches inconsequential to it’s functionality. That feels too restrictive for me. I honestly would like to see people adopt a middle ground. LGPL does this afaik and it feels like a better choice than GPL or BSD if you are trying to keep just your creation and it’s derivatives open.
You still own the code you release under GPL. the restriction you are describing is actually caused by the non-copyleft licences you claim to prefer. If you choose to use MIT, you are limiting which libraries you can use. If you had picked GPL to begin with, you can use any library.
I don’t exclusively own my own works anymore. Which is different than just owning your own work. Exclusivity allows you to sell something. Without that ability, you can’t convert a product into money as easily.
That seems a somewhat contrived example. Yes, it can theoretically happen - but in practice it would happen with a library, and most libraries are LGPL (or more permissive) anyway. By contrast, there have been plenty of stories lately of people who wrote MIT/BSD software, and then got upset when companies just took the code to add in their products, without offering much support in return.
Also, there’s a certain irony in saying what essentially amounts to, “Please license your code more permissively, because I want to license mine more restrictively”.
Well, remember, this is why I don’t GPL my own code, not why I don’t use GPL’ed code. I want to provide to others what I want to be provided to me. I make my games from Godot, MIT-licensed. Allows people to make commercially viable games. I also contribute what I can to Godot and attempt to backport engine improvements to Godot when I can. This exchange is fair to me and I believe fair to Godot.
Games exist as products directly to the consumer. There are reasons why GPL’ed games haven’t been commercially viable and those who’ve GPLed their game (after they have made tons of money from it) still don’t include the art. They still want to keep the game as profitable as possible while GPLing what they can.
Essentially the GPL is at odds with our capitalistic society, which is fine, our capitalistic society could be a lot better if we were more socialist or communist. The place it breaks down though is that we are still in a capitalistic society and people need to be able to sell their works for money.
This guy is a joke.
Based on commit history, you can prove that you did it originally
Free as in freedom
most new projects are in MIT?
My grades weren’t good enough so I license most of my code Community College Licence.
This is part of why universities generally have it in the admissions agreement that the university will hold copyright over all that you do for your classes
Wow that’s shitty
what u mean bro mit license is also good
Doesn’t weaponize copyright, what’s even the point
Virgin GPL license: Your source code should also be open
Chad WTFPL user: yes do what the fuck you want
Fixed it:
Chad GPL license: i made my code open source, so it stays open source. proprietary users seethe harder.
Virgin WTFPL user: yeah my code is meant to be open source, but you can do with it whatever you want!
WTFPL is the femboy of copyright
Nonsense, Femboys are far better.
