>prefer free software>get called a communistWhy does /g/ connect free, libre and open source software with communism?
>believe private property is theft>look surprised when you get called a commie
I wonder, OP...
>>65570395Bernie Sanders is hardly a communist, anon.
>>65570327They're triggered that their own beloved IP laws can be used to force them to comply with the GPL.
>>65570327>\g\O \pol\ baiter
>>65570395Better than Shillary ''BLEACHED bits'' Clinton.
>>65570327It's a burger thing. They're still living in an alternative reality fearing Russians and Communism.
/g/ is filled with communists in denial since they got memed by ancaps so hard
>>65570414Except in China and North Korea. And you wonder why we call you communists.
>nonfree software is botnet>private property is theft
>>65570327/pol/sters are retarded children that don't know what free software or communism are.Case in point:>>65570369>>65570395>>65570453
>>65570369>>65570475We aren't talking about freeware you fucking retards.
>>65570486>>65570489>claim proprietary software is unethical>"durr that's totally not equivalent to saying property is theft hurr"The absolute state of freetards.
>>65570327Replace /g/ with /pol/ and you know the answer and the solution.
>>65570505>>65570486>>65570451>>65570432/pol/ isn't about red scare. It has never been. You're thinking of /ptg/. /pol/ has always been about conspiracy theories. Proprietary software is spyware is one of them. So we advocate free software. You fucking morons.
>>65570369>Trying to compare hiding how a computer program works to owning private property
>>65570505I am a /pol/tard and I enjoy software with less botnets to calm my schizophrenia.
>>65570500Owning things is fine, but proprietary software means owning people, which isn't ethical. When you sell software, actually sell it to me so i can use it how I want and don't give me a binary that forces me to do what you want.
>>65570528>hiding how a computer program works Tech illiterate confirmed.
>>65570500Define free software and communism then show how the definition of the first is a superset set of the definition of the second.Plus points: Say your age.
>>65570570Big business steals free software: WAAAAHHH, WHERE'S MUH SORES CODE?!?!?!North Korea steals free software: *crickets chirping*Tell me more about how you aren't communists, kid.
>>65570327We do it to aggravate you because you're such insufferable faggots.
>>65570596I'm fearing talking to you makes me dumber than before.
>>65570596This really seizes my means of production
>>65570596would you volunteer to go to north korea to resolve this problem yourself?
>>65570596Wow that's a really good argument. I guess free software is communism after all. It's never too late to learn I guess XD.
Free software is a psyop support open source only.
>>65570596Stealing a free as in freedom to copy and shitOh my, /pol dumberinos are the best
>>65570327because they are cucks who drank that bullshit libertarian kool aid
>>65570327Because it's subversive by nature.
>>65570642>*copies free software binaries*>OMG WHERE'S THE LAMB SAUCE>heh, you're free to copy it anon... except don't copy it too hard, otherwise we might come at you with a lawsuit XD
>>65570327Teenagers without any idea what communism is.
>>65570327Because it's full of retarded libertarians...
>>65570596>Communism is when you don't criticize communists as much as I would like you to.This is a person who advocates for proprietary software.
>>65570523The attachment of communist to fos is a pol move you fuck wit
>>65570327> Isn't it ironic that the proprietary software developers call us communists? We are the ones who have provided for a free market, where they allow only monopoly. … if the users chooses this proprietary software package, he then falls into this monopoly for support … the only way to escape from monopoly is to escape from proprietary software, and that is what the free software movement is all about. We want you to escape and our work is to help you escape. We hope you will escape to the free world.
>>65570699Qui tacet consentire videtur. Faggot.
>>65570713Nope. /pol/ is pro-free software. Try again, you cringeworthy /g/-shit.
Because if your software comes from the government for """free""" you're still paying for it with taxes, and forcing people who don't even want to pay for that shit you socialist retards.>hurr abolish private property goyim
>>65570739>XD LE CRINGE
Is there a way to structure free software development and making an actual profit (not donating to paypal)?Do we need new licensing that charges corporations? I know some free software that uses cloud stuff charges to use their cloud service (zotero, wallabag, etc).I wouldn't be adverse to actual communist principles in free software (unionizing free software).
>>65570486>>65570395To be fair here, Stallman's political theories are retarded.Simple question: how do you have a society that has both a vibrant welfare state funded by progressive taxation AND complete financial privacy and anonymity? Are people supposed to just report their income to the government out of the goodness of their hearts?
>>65570762Communists don't want no government, you idiot. Communism is anarchic by nature. Stallman is an anarchist.
>>65570760Ask red hat.
>>65570747Meanwhile the US government is the largest Microsoft licencee.
>>65570760Sell support, training or customizations. See Red Hat, SuSe and Oracle with Java®.
>>65570773>a Bernie Sanders supporting anarchist
>>65570773Just stop posting bullshit.
>>65570779This.They make money by actually supporting their projects instead of dropping proprietary abbandonware and charging a license fee.
>>65570773This is incorrect.>>65570762I don't understand this question. How is it related to the thread? Is that because stallman doesn't use credit cards? I don't think he is against the government being able to audit a person's financial life. He just doesn't like how much data the CC companies collect and how obscure is it's use.
>Paying isn’t wrong, and being paid isn’t wrong. Trampling other people’s freedom and community is wrong, so the free software movement aims to put an end to it, at least in the area of software.
>>65570760>Is there a way to structure free software development and making an actual profit (not donating to paypal)?the same way you make money with proprietary software>Do we need new licensing that charges corporations? big corporations don't pay for software anyway, free or proprietary they just try and shake the little guy down so they can get a low rate
>>65570327>Why does /g/ connect free, libre and open source software with communism?Because of the GPL.MIT license is an acceptable FOSS license.
>>65570774>>65570779does this only work for big corporations though? Consider Scrivener which is no red hat by any means. How could they profit by making it free?
>>65570466Chinese companies also steal a lot of proprietary software and hardware designs. Does this make proprietary software IP communist too?
>>65570845>ScrivenerI don't know this one. But for smaller software a common first step is selling books the said software. There are also many cases in which the free software is not developed and market by a company but by a """non-profit""" group of companies with a common goal. Linux, Gnome, SystemD and Django are examples of this.
>>65570786>>65570803>In political and social sciences, communism is the philosophical, social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money and the state.
>>65570916Saying that the ultimate goal of communists is an anarchistic society is different from saying communists don't want government in general. Communists usually think a strong State regulating all aspects of life is the best way to achieve their final goal.
>>65570930They usually don't. Just because only the ones who did got famous and you've only heard of them doesn't they usually do. Study more.
>>65570916>but first we need to establish a dictatorship over the entire planet and brainwash all of homo sapiens for generations until everyone alive is physically incapable of ever even contemplating non-communist thought, at which point our totalitarian descendant's will definitely abolish all government and allow the superior human beings they created to live in an eternal Utopia of goodwill and compassion
>>65570949I was talking about communist "people" in general not communist philosophers. Telling people to study more is not an argument.
>>65570971Said no one ever.>>65570972I was talking about communist people too.>le "not an argubend meme XDDDD"If you're a retarded libertarian who follows that pseudo-philosopher Molyneux, then I don't wanna talk to you anymore. Off to the Gulag you go.
>>65570327Because they forget about the part where you're not forced to work on open source software, and you generally only do it for other kinds of compensations, either being the pleasure of writing the code itself (which is why most Open source software sucks at the boring code parts such as GUIs) or getting something to boost your job prospects.
Would something like a patreon for a union of free software work? Like a group of free software developers group together and people pay the group>>65570912books I guess require capital to start producing. I guess I'm interested in a more structural change where-in free software developers can profit (if not solely for their program and maybe support). I love free software, but the monetary incentives too good to close off your software.
>>65570996>Off to the Gulag you goWho runs a gulag when there's no state?
>>65571015You don't get to ask questions, you just get to work the fields. You haven't even figured out who would own prisons in your stateless ancap utopia, so you're obviously not ready to think about that.
>>65570327There is nothing wrong with free software, but some free software types want to force it on others using government. If someone wants to make a software and not share the code, I think he should have the right to make that decision.I also don't have a problem with communism if they keep to themselves, but communists tend to try to force their ways on the rest of the world.
Lol good work anons you just unleashed the shills from Microsoft.
>>65571060The FSF and the Linux foundation have plenty of money for shills. Microsoft is busy making sure their users have basic features that freetards will never have like filepicker thumbnails.
>>65570747>ancap memes/pol/ understands better than /g/ does that /g/ is a leftist enclave that must be extinguished if they are to spread their cancer to every board
>>65570327It's not /g/, it's all the /pol/lacks bleeding in who don't understand how to profit off of free software.
free software in isolation is just free softwarefree software as it's been used IRL as a means of convincing people everything should be free... well not exactly all that innocent
>>65571132Red Hat doesn't profit off software. They profit off support.
>Buy chair>It works okay for a while>Unfortunately chair breaks>Grab some wood and fix the chair, making it fit my use case again>Friends who bought the same chair want me to fix it for them, I agree for a certain sum of money>Buy software>It works okay for a while>One day it crashes>Open up a text editor to modify it and fix it, making it fit my use case again>Share my patches so other people can fix their softwareInstead, you get sued up your ass because apparently its illegal to modify your property after you buy it. Tell me, how is owning your property communism?
>>65571056and what if i don't approve of the government taking my tax dollars and giving them to malware companies who want to enact a police state
>>65571148This. Free software is simple liberty and people are retarded to think otherwise.
>>65571148property is a spook
this is just a /pol/ thread in disguise>>65570369>>65570530>>65570596>>65570739>>65570747>>65571037go back to /pol/>>65571148>>65570804those are the only sane posts in this thread
>>65571214There is literally nothing wrong with spooks.
>>65571228What if politics and technology overlap in some areas of discussion? It's almost like we're living in the 21st century!
>>65570327Because you failed to call it Freedom Software OPCall it Freedom SoftwareFreedom SoftwareThen you can watch their butt cheeks clenchBecause they literally can't equate communism with freedomTL;DR: You're doing it wrong.
>>65571148You can modify your chair, but the company isn't obligated to give you blueprints for the chair, since those are two different things. Likewise you can technically modify a binary, but that doesnt mean developers are obligated to give you the source code, because they are two different things and they're only giving you one.
>>65571230"I am free from what I am rid of, owner of what I have in my power or what I control."
>>65571164I'd agree. I want government to say out of tech and business in general.
>/g/>shills linux neckbeard C crap>shits on actual decent free software like eclipse
>>65571272There is literally nothing wrong with spooks.
>>65571264if it's trivial for them to send me the blueprints then they should do it, not letting customers inspect how their merchandise is made is the act of a con artistalso proprietary software almost always forbids studying, modifying and redistributing the binary
>>65571279sad that eclipse is considered an example of "good" lmao
>>65571340>if it's trivial for them to send me the blueprints then they should do itaccording to whom? they are not under any obligation to do so. Blueprints were never for sale in this example.>also proprietary software almost always forbids studying, modifying and redistributing the binaryperhaps, but that is far from what free software entails.
>>65571356most freetard software is janky amateur garbage, rms-tier autism makes you look like communists
>>65570327>/g/ is one (1) personnice thread faggot sage
a lot of open source projects have aggressive copyleft licenses attached to them, so most developers won't want anything to do with them, and you look like leftist antifa freaks
>>65571388according to me, the guy paying them
>>65571469>gib blueprints pl0x>no>ohh ok
>>65571469trade is a two-way deal. If they dont agree to your terms, they wont sell you anything. The reverse is true for you.
>>65571453>GPL prevents leeching>Big companies contribute to GPL code>Thriving software like Linux, Git, OpenJDK>BSD is free gibs>Big companies leech on BSD code long after expiry date>See OpenSSL for one prominent example>Other projects leeched to death before reaching prominence
>>65571575>Linux, Git, OpenJDKthese are things that businesses are allowed to USEbut for libraries that you would use as a component of a software product, gpl is TRASH
>>65571264And it's still against the law to distribute the patched binary.
>>65571663what the patch itself?
This is worse than the "uploading your consciousness" threads
>>65570327/g/ee I don’t know, why is free, libre and open source software preferred by communists?
>>65571575Try being more subtle next time, Zhang.
>>65571148Except the situation you just described isn't realistic. In real life, proprietary software is more versatile than open sores.Just because you won't perform deep surgery inside the software doesn't mean you can't do anything with it. You can customize and fix proprietary software too. As a matter of fact, it's a better model, because it encourages creating modular software like Windows, instead of monolithic software like Linux.There's plenty of third-party software that customizes and resolves problems about Windows out there, and you're just showing everyone you're a brainlet for not knowing it.
>>65570545>proprietary software means owning peopleGalactus level trollProprietary: something that is used, produced, or marketed under exclusive legal right of the inventor or makerThere is nothing wrong with something having a single owner versus non-ownership/communal ownership like the GPL. With the GPL it is impossible to own anything. It does not care about property rights concerned with software. It is AGAINST software having a proprietor, which is an owner. Ergo it is against private property.Now I believe that once an idea is out or source code is out in the public that people should be able to use it but that's because I don't believe in certain kinds of intellectual property. Intellectual property, by and large, is complete bullshit. But that doesn't make the GPL moral.You should be able to keep the source code secret and make a profit. You should not be able to stop someone from reverse engineering your code. This means that keeping things secret means using cloud-based solutions which is what big business is moving to.The GPL, in its fight against "proprietary" software is specifically against ownership.Proprietor: noun1. the owner of a business establishment, a hotel, etc.2. a person who has the exclusive right or title to something; an owner, as of real property.We can argue about intellectual property and whether source code counts as property all day. But the crux of the matter is that the GPL is against proprietary software. It is against software having an owner. This violates a person's freedom of voluntary interaction. It is not a moral license. It is completely immoral.I imagine a better license would work something like this:Buy a copy and you own it. I do not have to give you the source code but neither can I stop you from reverse engineering my work.
>>65571605>let's sell software!>average app sale price on app store: $1.44>revenue produced by average app is negativegreat business ideacome up with it yourself?>BSD = free development>GPL = free maintenance>80% of software is maintenanceLicenses that are not copyleft are the hot garbage, friendo.
>>65571821Chinese shills pls leave.
Open source hardware when?
>>65571794>In real life, proprietary software is more versatile than open sores.False, proprietary software limits the amount of customization on the software. FOSS doesn't.>it encourages creating modular software like WindowsWindows isnt modular, Linux is, since every component doesnt necessarily depend on other component, which makes it even more cuztomizable.>There's plenty of third-party software that customizes and resolves problems about Windows out thereYou cant even disable telemetry on Windows, and constant updates undo any modification you did in your install.
>>65571148More like:>buy proprietary software>it's okay for a while>has a problem or wanna customize it?>sure, here's an SDK, feel free to write your own programs for it>get open sores software for free>it's never okay to begin with because it lacks basic features and is buggy>be forced to put up with it>file bug reports>developers refuse to fix it>attempt to fix it yourself>no stable API provided, so get ready to plunge your hands into the dirt>have to unironically try to understand code written by other people>source code base looks like an Italian festival with so much spaghetti>no documentation whatsoever>can't fix the problems you had or customize the programMoral of the story: there's no such thing as free lunch. You get what you pay for.
Why is there no free pdf form filler?Evince doesn't even handle checkboxes right.
>>65570773Stallman is a retard that doesn't know anything. If he ran society it would burn to the fucking ground. He's so far removed from reality that it isn't funny anymore.How well has communism worked out with hundreds of millions dead and entire nations left in poverty. China adapted "communism with Chinese characteristics" which is basically totalitarian state capitalism because they knew that communism was bullshit. China is thriving because it kept the totalitarian ethos of the communist totalitarian "transitional state" and kept capitalism. Anarcho-communism is a fucking fairy tale. Grow up.>>65570762You're wasting your time. You're talking to NEETs that are forever stuck in a state of adolescence and naivete that is so confining that they can't understand basic human nature.>>65570912But these are tools (programming languages, compilers, etc) and operating system components that everyone mutually benefits from. Of course they're going to put time and money into it. Cooperation isn't a bad thing and it works for some kinds of software like an init system. But how would you make money if you released a completely open source video game with all of the art, animation, and code neatly packaged and easily installed as apt-get shitty-game-3.0? Why would anyone pay for a game you can download and install free of charge?At least in the case of video games, this would create a pretty large barrier to entry. You would need a certain amount of capital to make your amazing game and then when you release it like 20% of the people buy it. Donations are not a sustainable business model. They are a gamble. You could charge people to watch ads to get in game money, have them pay real money for in-game currency, or other such models...but the minute you make it open source someone can have all of that functionality without giving you a dime. There are VERY REAL cases where releasing the source code of a product is a bad idea.
>>65571932>hundreds of millions dead
>>65571802The GPL doesnt imply communal ownership/non-ownership. In fact, I would argue it implies extreme ownership, where every derivative work of my software must abide by my terms, which is the opposite of non-ownership. Whether this is a valid license is subject to debate, but it is not what you imply it to be.>The GPL, in its fight against "proprietary" software is specifically against ownership.Which brings me to the second point, FOSS isnt against software ownership because it allows the people who pay for the software to have direct control over it, which means they can run it, rewrite it, control what it does, how it does it and to what extent it does it.Tell me, if you buy a house you expect to be able to redecorate it, move furniture around, build more rooms, install a pool, etc. However, if you rent a house you can only do those if the landlord allows it. The crucial difference is that in the latter case the landlord is the owner of the house, while in the former YOU are the owner. The same principle applies to software.
>>65571932>But how would you make money if you released a completely open source video game with all of the art, animation, and code neatly packaged and easily installed as apt-get shitty-game-3.0? Why would anyone pay for a game you can download and install free of charge?Most proprietary software can and IS pirated, which makes this argument moot, since the companies that release the software keep making money.
>>65571975> I would argue it implies extreme ownership, where every derivative work of my software must abide by my terms, which is the opposite of non-ownership.Its "extreme ownership" until you want to distribute your changes to the software. That is where the license has its boot on your neck forcing you to distribute changes to the software under a license. Charging distribution fees is practically impossible since one person can share his copy of my work with the next. Charging any amount of money for the software becomes impossible when it must be distributed with the source code.You can certainly charge for updates, support, and features added to the software but once you hand your clients the code they can turn to a competitor. Avoiding competition is a perfectly valid business strategy.
>>65571148>>65571975Both of these things. If you can't understand and change the thing you claim to own, you don't own it. Having the source of a program allows you the freedom to call yourself the true owner of software, provided you understand it. Even if not everyone wants to change the product from the form it came in the people that do should still be allowed if they own things in the sense one can own and modify your physical property.
>>65572215So why can't I distribute my changes to the software under my own terms? How is that "free"?
>>65572233Because you agreed to the terms of the original developer.
>intellectual property doesn't exist>except when it's on my computer, then it's mine
>>65572207>but once you hand your clients the code they can turn to a competitor.The thing is, with the GPL there is no advantage besides the code quality each companies programmers can produce. If your company depends on secrecy to make profit, the moment the secret goes public youre over. On the other hand, having your brand be synonymous with code quality and innovation will rake in the big bucks for a long time.
>>65571802>develop program>put gpl on it>nothing happens>I'm still the owner of my shit>remove gpl license, add EULA, add botnet>because I can>I'm the owner
>>65572329>any regulation on property is haram>except on my computer microsoft's my frien ;)
Private property is fascism.
>>65571263inb4 some guys feel uneasy about freedoms and split off to the Free Source camp
>>65572371Hey stormfag, whatcha doing?
>>65571932>But how would you make money if you released a completely open source video game with all of the art, animation, and code neatly packaged and easily installed as apt-get shitty-game-3.0? Why would anyone pay for a game you can download and install free of charge?playing devil's advocate here, aseprite lets you build it from source for free, but costs money for a convenient installer, and /v/tards can't figure out how to compile it so they pay for it
>>65570327Mixture of /pol/ tardism and /speccy/ posters agreeing to get rid of freetards.
>>65571148>analogiesget back to me when you have something more rigorous
>>65572330Nothing stops private companies "competing" by just ripping off GPL code and baking it into their codebase.How can you prove it since their source code is closed?I have a good idea how you can maintain ownership over a product that doesn't give information to your competitors. Sell the product and don't share the recipe. It works for CocaCola that 99% of you drink.Why aren't you drinking open source cola? Yeah I bet it sucks because it doesn't have cocaine extract in it.
>>65572371Wtf I love private property now
open source is just a ruse for the project owner to make money off of it one way or another. they sell out or they put out some half-ass library and rely on freetard cucks to maintain it for them.
>>65572529>Nothing stops private companies "competing" by just ripping off GPL code and baking it into their codebase.You can sue them, dummy.>How can you prove it since their source code is closed?Because those who rip off code are pretty bad at hiding it, which makes it possible to detect gpl violations.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BusyBox#GPL_lawsuitshttps://nixos.org/~eelco/pubs/clones-msr2011-final.pdf
>>65572603Don't you mean only the ones bad enough to get caught are easy to detect?You can still "comply" with GPL by only releasing the GPL code and modifications while keeping your codebase licensed and closed.
>>65570523>attaching your identity enough to /pol/ that you say “we”Get a life man child
>>65571821>freetard kid doesn't know the value of a dollarit adds upsell a million copies and you're set for life
Capitalism ruins software.
>>65570369>We gave away our rights to repair>We gave away our rights to own products we buyYou are literal soyboy, it's anti consumerism that people are sick of and I don't want to buy software for 3k to be artificially disabled.
>>65572682Wow, you can do what GPL was intended for? You showed them.
>having ideology over softwareLol, just use whatever you like cucks.
>>65570369This.Weak soyed commie vs. KAPITAL BOĞA.>>65570622>>>/r/eddit
As a capitalist I don't want to give away my personal data for free. That's why I use free software
>>65572682>>65573191t. kids who have never made a software producthttps://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/158789/can-i-link-to-a-gpl-library-from-a-closed-source-application
>want to do thing>look up pre-existing libraries>they're lazy brainlet shit and have shit licenses>delusional academics assume your time is worthless, that you will test their shit without knowing the price, and then contact them to negotiate a licensing deal>just make a better thing and keep the source to myself
>>65573661You sure showed them with your stackexchange page amirite?
>>65573738https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#LinkingWithGPL>you must release your program under a license compatible with the GPL
>The idea of the GPL is that if you want to include our code in your program, your program must also be free software. It is supposed to put pressure on you to release your program in a way that makes it part of our community.LITERAL COMMUNISM CONFIRMED
>>65571279For me to appreciate and recommend software, it first usually has to be free software. From there, I can compare it by usefulness and how pleasant it is to use. For this reason, I will recommend mpv over vlc, even though both are free software. It's probably a similar case with eclipse. I really like vim. I plan to learn emacs eventually. I don't see much reason for something as hyper-specialized and seemingly-bloated as eclipse.
>>65573812it's at least an alternative to visual studio. retards act like there's only visual studio for C++ on windows
>>65571932I doubt he would ever try to run society. He very much sticks to what he knows. He hasn't even installed GNU/Linux himself. He leaves it to people who are used to installing operating systems and are able to configure it properly for him. I consider myself, in general, to be a Stallman supporter, but this mindset is not one I really agree with. I think everyone should try to be well-rounded and multi-talented.
>>65570773Anarchy = Individualism = DecentralizedGovernment = Collectivism = CentralizedIf your an anarchist and aren't an ancap, you might have autism.
>>65570327>hey man work on this software I use all the time, but I'm never going to pay for it and I'll freak out if you charge for it or charge for it and don't release the full source code so I can get it for free anywayGee I can't activate my almonds hard enough for this one
>>65570570relatively easyfor communism i think there's a saying along the lines of: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."for free software it's: "hey, there's a set of instructions you can use for your problem; feel free to edit, study, modify it so it comforts your needs"LITERALLYTHESAME
>>65571037Haha yeah you sure showed him, and (damn... I don't want to say it... But fuck it) me, no. 65571037.
>>65574827>From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.please explain how this doesn't also describe capitalism
>>65573246>he enslaves himself>calls others cucks
>>65574827because *communism is right*, duhh, what the fuck do you think this is? do you even code? Jesus.
>>65575157capitalism doesn't have social safety-net, eventho you can implement it in a society in which practicing capitalism is allowed.
How do we get rid of the communists that plague /g/?
> government owns private property> you can make your own kernel at any timereally maeks u thingk
>>65575589Just get rid of retarded burgers and magically all the "communists" will disappear.
Americans can’t stop sucking dicks of their corporate overlords
>>65570327Bsd is freedomGnu is communismIf you don't have the freedom to sell, it's not freedom
>>65571148It's more like you getting sued for charging to fix the chair, since the chair is open source and can't be sold
>>65575656You are right and wrong. In order to be Free Software, you must be allowed to sell it. Your implication that the GPL wouldn't allow selling is wrong.https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.htmlInform yourself before posting.
>>65570327Well the difference is whether you think that non free software shouldn't exist. I vastly prefer free software and try to have my systems be as libre as possible.Still I'm a die-hard capitalist and communist. They aren't necessarily the same thing
>>65575722>GPL allows selling, anon>*grsec sells patch*>WAAAHHH GPL VIOLATION STALLMAN HELP!
>>65575848Not an argument.
>>65575788because grsec violates the gpl, not by selling, but by not allowing people to share what they bought
>>65575876That's only partly correct. It's not a violation when the owner does it. That's why for example Linux, GPL licensed, but includes proprietary blobs, doesn't violate the GPL. Only people who got a program with a license to comply can violate the license.
>>65575876>>65575722So there's the catch. You're not allowed to sell something without allowing that to be legally redistributed, unmodified, for free. So in essence the freedom to sell in gpl is a dishonest hoax
>>65575876>how does selling work
>>65570470It's called a telesalesman, tommy.
>>65575943Stop larping the retard.
>>65574827>>>65570570>relatively easy>for communism i think there's a saying along the lines of: "From each according to his abilities whether they like it or not, to each according to his needs.">for free software it's: "hey, there's a set of instructions you can use for your problem; feel free to edit, study, modify it so it comforts your need, because I'm actually ok with it, and I am, in no way forced to share"I fixed it for you
fuck off you leech
>sharing smart code wit nice frens>suffering under totalitarian regime where you get gulag'd for even coding choose one anon
>>65576282>totalitarian regime where you get gulag'd for even codingIs that why Windows has the most developers?
>>65576282>sharing smart code wit nice frensliterally has never happened
>>65570327neocommies (bernie bros) only like free software because it is free as in beer, they do not care that it is free as in libre, they are broke.
>>65576362windows is crony capitalismthat's why they hire the most pajeets>>65576369>nobody has shared smart code with frens for freethe world is grateful you don't write smart code
>>65570327I don't know, it always baffles me, maybe it is guilt by association.My utopian Fascist state uses Linux and other free software to manage it's extermination program for Jews, non whites, degenerates, etc.>>65570713What? But /pol/ is shilling for free software.
>>65576436Linux would unironically flourish under National SocialismProgrammers working under a combined goal to help humanity, and doing it for free
>>65575988Selling is allowed. Until people actually do it. Then it's not anymore.
>>65575988So with gpl not only can people make free copies of your paid software, they can also sell it themselves, unmodified It's a dishonest hoax. Fuck you. Unless you are barred from selling or distributing an unmodified copy of paid software, then in all practical essence you're not actually allowed to "sell" it. There should be limits of minimum modification required to resell or redistribute if paid for. All while keeping the code itself open source.
>>65570596This is why we need regime change in North Korea.
>>65577062This is why we need *to turn North Korea into a glass desert