Which free and open-source licenses do you prefer to use?
as a large language model i have no preferences — i'm just happy to be able to be trained on them
>>108944872Mit because my code is garbage anyway
AGPLv3+You want to use it, give back.
GPL 2 and +NIGGER/thread
>>108944970
>>108944872MIT because i want it to spread, but i would like one that force the code to spread more like a virus
>>108944982Using the AGPL is fucking based. Nothing makes the SAASjew recoil more in fear. >N...Noooo! I wanted to use this for free! Damn you! How dare you?! I'll sue you! Denying me things I want is anti semitic! You WILL relicense under a license that allows me to just take your code and give nothing back! Hackerjews' frontpage hates nothing more than libraries that force you to share some of the wealth you gained by glueing libraries together with the people who wrote the libraries that do all the actually hard work and that alone shows you it's based.
>>108945062You mean copyleft?
>>108944872Apache 2
If it's not GPL might as well make it proprietary, because it will become a part of something proprietary anyway.
GPL because it makes chuds on /g/ seethe
>>108944872ISC for shit I care not about, (L)GPLv2 for shit I care about.
no license. people who i want to be able to use my software can use it freely, corpos will run away screaming. the perfect balance.
>>108944872MIT/BSD is the based man's choice>b-b-butt my cuck licenseprogramming is just glorified button pushing, it's not that serious
>>108944982one has merely to look at the way Oracle uses the AGPL to realize its unintended consequencesOracle bought Berkeley DB and relicensed it under the AGPL, not because they believe in FOSS, but because it pushes developers to pay Oracle for non-AGPL bdb licenses that permit them to keep their own code proprietary
>>108945991If a company pays oracle because they're scared of the AGPL, that's just a retard tax and they deserve it.
>>108945991name an agpl software that doesn't offer a proprietary license, too?grafana does.redis does.elastisearch does....
>>108946004Lemmy
>>108945997bold take from someone who is obviously a retard himself>>108946004are you trying to prove my point that the AGPL is prone to corporate abuse?
>>108946080Oracle is a corporation based on buttfucking other corporations up their assholes.They give their stuff away for free, or make it incredibly easy to use it, and then send legal teams into corpos to do license audits that take up to a year.The corpos have to strip naked and Oracle inspects them.The average settlement value after a legal audit is a 7-digit sum and they do 3000 of those per year.Not a single private person ever got bothered by this, while corpos lose billions.So if your definition of "corpo abuse" is "the corpo getting abused"... then yes, and its a good thing.The corpos always have the option to just not violate the AGPL, if they don't like it.
>>108946130holy shit, you're stupid
>>108944872MIT for stuff I'm just giving away. Dual licensed AGPL+commercial for stuff I think someone might pay for.
>>108945991What was the Berkeley DB license before Oracle bought it?
>>108944872Preferaly GPL-compatible. But all free software licenses are acceptable for a free operating system.Should definitely not write new programs containing the BSD advertising clause.
With GPL you get Linux, the backbone of the world. With cuck licenses you get minix, the backbone of NSA spyware.
I actually like Firefox 151. It's a real improvement and I updated all of my machines. Now I'm waiting for 151 like esr version.
>>108944872Cute!
AGPL+NIGGER
I want to release something I made that could potentially be monetized or used by MSPs and I dont want that. I want people/companies to just use it for free. So im handcrafting a license that says its free for internal use but not allowed for msps or to turn it into a saas to offer it on a cloud. Or are there licenses who already do that?
>>108947249unironically ask an LLM
>>108945975Having no license means no one is legally allowed to use it. Consider CC0.
>>108944872I prefer no licence at all
>>108944982This, but without the +The whole "or later" part of the GPL is an incredibly stupid and dangerous concept and nobody should use it that way.
>>108944872MPL-2.0 feels like saner LGPL imo
gpl2 for me mit for thee
>>108944872why does kit look so demonic in that image? what is it doing? what is it'S agenda?
>>108948180Anon, if you were flipping a big switch or pulling a big lever, you'd look like a Bond villain too
>>108948753what is the switch for?
>>108948789turning foxes into anthro bbw women that lust over BWHC
>>108944872Licenses as a concept are literally dead with the dawn of AI. Speaking de facto, for public code there's literally only two licenses:>for free>not for free That's it. Any copes with muh gpl, copyleft, and other bullshit can now be easily circumvented with copywriting AIs.
>>108948830Maybe that will happen eventually. But at the moment, I think making a clone of something requires a lot of money and effort. And it doesn't work for highly complex software.
>>108948869>I think making a clone of something requires a lot of money and effortLmao no. This only applies to the most complex of softwares build by gigantic squads of open source collaborators. Your pet project definitely doesn't fall into that scale, neither do 99% of open source projects.
>>108948903That's a very different claim from "licenses as a concept are literally dead"
>>108947216Based.
>>108948830If you're referring to the startup that's using two AIs to write clean room reverse engineered reimplementations of open source software, I don't think that's going to hold up in court.
>>108949534>that's not going to hold up in court Why not? The startup itself may be banned, but what exactly about the process is illegal?
>>108949551Reverse engineering software is not generally legal. It's limited to fair use (commentary, news reporting, etc.) and interoperability. You cannot reverse engineer software to create a competing product with a different license.
>>108949602>Reverse engineering software is not generally legalAre you sure about that anon? Feel free to sue OpenAI, anthropic et al, as well as any other tech company on earth and collect millions
>>108944872AGPL3+NIGGER
licenses are just illusionary property stuff.
>>108945062>MIT
>>108944872MPL-2.0-no-copyleft-exception
>>108947216AGPL+NIGGERNIGGER
