Men who are attracted to the thought of themselves as women. They go on and on about gender euphoria when validated (read boner).
Other telltale signs include balding head, nose rings, poor hygiene, messy living conditions and poor fashion sense.
Finally, a third world experience!
Growing up in the third world as a minority, I have always been called a racist for not having the national language as my first language. I racistly speak to my parents in my first language everyday, would do it again.
Some of you just hate Muslims.
Yes what about it? Have you even lived with muslims? No? Then fuck off. They hate me too, so its completely mutual, nothing personal.
Your views are genuinely... Pretty extreme. And highly upvoted, which is... At least as bad.
Did you know people with different views exist beyond what is allowed by your master?
Enjoy your little circlejerk
We must censor more to prevent circlejerks.
Mean time, let me just suggest... That you get offline for a bit. Go out and... Try and live life. Because living in a world of constant online hatred and "othering" of the outgroup isn't overly healthy.
Boy that's rich, an outsider coming in to other the natives, smugly telling the natives they're wrong.
Frankly, you're just repeating duckspeak now. Quack quack quack but you have no idea what you're even saying, its completely formulaic.
When Trump said to withdraw from the Middle East, I already knew it meant this would happen. Despite that, I DO SUPPORT the withdrawal with the implicit understanding it meant bloodshed will happen in 3rd world shitholes, a small cost for bringing Americans home. This whole liberating the middle east from dictatorship nonsense has been bullshit from the start, it is a forced change, it is unnatural and goes against the cultural norms evolved in the region.
Do you think everybody there will still continue on as if nothing happened? What part no bases in the middle east do you not understand? What part of no more NATO support do you not get? There is no magic Kumbayah decision after forcing changes and then suddenly leaving.
All these whining coming from people who are against US foreign intervention looks like a bunch of NPCs upset that no foreign intervention meant exactly that, foreigners can do as they please in their own territory, including all those things that are supposedly evil and shouldn't be done.
The whining from people who support US foreign intervention is at least understandable. The institutional push back against Trump to withdraw from the middle east had the military hiding units instead of actually withdrawing and starting bombing runs again in early 2021.
What I am uncertain of is the whole media blitz campaign now on Afghanistan, which is likely a distraction for how terrible the US domestic policy is right now, and that trillion dollar bill that congress is trying to pass. It is also possible this is a test to gauge the public interest in a new middle eastern adventure, repackaged and resold as a humanitarian interest story, slightly different than the last, or to excuse the ramping up of mass immigration into the west, while screaming into the sky about covid restrictions on the locals.
I wouldn't mind so much if they actually put in effort, but at this point its mostly just screams.
OTH, Haterjuiced might be starting to crack from the /pol/ pressure, but we'll see if the guy behind the name gets replaced.
Agreed on our differences.
One real life use that actually happened to me was GPL forbidding addition of terms and conditions. You cannot force the customer to sign an NDA that prevents the distribution of the modified GPL code. Neither can you put a term and insist the software may only be used in pre-production hardware. The license nullifies any such agreements the moment the customer receives your product.
We did actually plan to release it publicly, just "not now, not until everything is working and stable for our new widget". Our direct customers were specifically looking for Linux kernel support so they can get working drivers on early access hardware, they might not even be using the exact same reference design as us, they are planning to sell it the moment the widget was announced to the public. In the end the customers convinced the legal and management to upstream the code to the kernel.org developers so that similar hardware based on the original reference design will simply just work out of the box.
But if you make any improvements to support your even better widget, every random Chinese company can just clone it for cheaper.
They will do that regardless of the license of the software, but you can prevent anyone else that respects copyrights. How does BSD even help? Worst yet, BSD accepts this. Besides, if I can buy the version with GPL software and accessible source code, I'd pay more instead of getting the knock off version that I can't even modify.
That's why everyone produces widgets has to go to lengths to keep GPL-taint away from whatever it is that allows them to compete.
That's a reason to use proprietary software, not open source. I can negotiate with the vendors however I want so long as all parties agree. I can even write a contract in such a way that allows me exclusive access and no one else.
With software that is actually free, those who improve it can do what they want with their improvements, regardless if that's to share them or not.
How am I suppose to improve it if I don't have access to it? How am I suppose to use an upstream version that doesn't even work work on the widget I bought? Why not just get the Free software version that allows me to improve upon it?
Because if I'm open sourcing my code I want it to be usable by anyone for anything. The closer to plain Public Domain a license gets, the more free the code. Say I develop some magic compression that doubles storage densities. If I open source it, I want my improvements to end up in everything out there even closed sourced software and widgets.
Someone relicensing your code doesn't make your code any less free or available. You simply aren't allowed to dictate what they can do with their own work.
That's why BSD is merely "open source" not Free software, because at the end of the day, access is entirely conditional on part of the distributors releasing the product, no different from the extra steps negotiating proprietary software licensing. It does nothing for Freedom.
If it was GPL to begin with, the code remains Free, indefinitely, including all the derivatives to anyone, anywhere. It does this by obligating everyone in the distribution chain to supply that source code to whoever received their product, without any additional terms or restrictions allowed to be added or removed.
We've been going around in circles, it is clearly going nowhere.
but the derivative was never Free in the first place.
That's the argument against "merely open source" style licenses, the freedom stops when someone dictates it stops. I can't integrate a new features done by another author on top of Bob's features with a mix of Alice's new changes, I have to reinvent what Bob did. Bob did not grant the same freedom to anyone else as he was given, he merely took them for himself.
GPL is used precisely because anyone can pick and choose improvements from other authors and not be stopped by somebody deciding to add restrictions and conditions willy-nilly. I can even switch to someone else's branch as a base and then pull in whatever I think is lacking and then sell a widget that runs the software with the source code provided to the customer.
The BSD licensed code also remains Free for anyone else to use it.
So does GPL code, including every derivative down the line. No one may modify the license to add additional terms and conditions. What is Free, remains Free in perpetuity.
If you consider the ability to impose any arbitrary conditions and restrictions anywhere in the distribution chain by anyone more important than the code itself being accessible to everyone, how is that even different from licensing proprietary software? You can even draft a contract to be BSD-like with extra steps for your product so long as all parties agree.
That's it. GPL is "free" with strings. BSD doesn't have those.
Laughs in BSD 4-Clause, clause #3.
I'll have to disagree there, BSD isn't Free because it never tries to preserve the freedom to modify and tinker. It is merely "open source", just like MPL, CDDL, MIT, Apache and the like.
If you want to lock down your BSD derived code into a "product", and decide to avoid GPL'ed code, at least the GPL'ed code will remain Free for anyone else to use it. Anybody using your product has to beg for permission to your code. It is the perfect license for 2-bit product manufacturers that don't care about software freedom.
You're not modifying the license of the original work in any way.
Now beg Apple and Intel so you can modify it for your own use, they sure did lock it up forever.
I'm suggesting a scarcity of developer time
Its also a scarcity of developer time if they don't have access to the formerly BSD turned proprietary modified source code. With GPL, all code is always available to anyone by requiring anyone receiving the code to do the same, make it available to anyone else that got it from them.
You're a commie
You are projecting, if anything, BSD is what allows communist confiscation by allowing the code to be relicensed and closed off. "I want to take this but don't want to allow anyone else using my version to see my code".
Your logic is "I published a design for a new type of screw, so I should get to use everything made with that screw design for free! If you don't like it, make your own screw!"
No, the logic is "I designed a screw, I want everyone to be able to modify it if they wish, on condition they also allow anyone else to do the same as they have". Maybe your application needs a fancy interrupted thread for faster operations, feel free to make better alternatives for your use case, just as BSD and Windows exists alongside the Linux kernel for different purposes.
And then they do make their own screw and say "whoever wants to use it can".
You talk about "rights, rights, rights" but never any obligation to actually preserve it. Now the improved version can only be used by some people who are better than others.
Not everything that should uses the LGPL and the fact that they had to invent a separate license to suppress the virality of the normal GPL tells you that even the architects of the GPL know their license is a disease.
The whole point of a strong copyleft is code remains free, it will never turn proprietary.
You use GPL because you want a strong copyleft, that's the whole point. If you are making a library that is designed to be link to and you don't care about the applications using it, you use LGPL. LGPL states that the user MUST be able to replace the library portion, shared linking is easier in this case because of the architecture of the program loaders for most OSes. You can still static link to an LGPL library fine if you provide some kind of link editor to allow users to edit and relink your library to their version. If you made an application that is not designed to be linked to, what is the point of using LGPL?
BSD is "here's some code do whatever with it."
There's that lolbertarian logic again. The only people praising it are idealists or someone looking to build their own proprietary fief.
People's Democratic Repository
Are you seriously suggesting there is a scarcity of bits? Am I confiscating and redistributing your code if I made a copy? Do you somehow lose yours if I did? Is git clone stealing and coveting your neighbor's wealth?
There is no central planning committee dictating five year plans for GPL programs. The only contract is that you give the same freedoms to your users the same freedom you received.
If you can't distribute your own changes however you want, it's not a permissive license.
That would be BSD, pray you are given permission.
GPL doesn't care if you're linking static or share, that would be LGPL, designed for shared libraries. I don't see how BSD preserves freedom when you don't even have any guarantees to the source code if it can be relicensed any time by a fork, particularly 3 clause and 2 clause BSD versions. The 4 clause version just needs you to put in an ad for the BSD license but doesn't require anything else.
If anything, GPL would be the militant commune that aims to protect itself from subversion, while BSD would be the hippie commune that can't even understand the need to protect itself.
Problem is that the Linux kernel is in somewhat good shape because Linus is a controlling asshole, especially looking at the shit he rejects.
One of the most important rule is that to NEVER BREAK USERSPACE COMPATIBILITY. Imagine Mozilla kicking out all the extensions because they made an update to the Firefox backend, nobody will tolerate that level of bullshit every few weeks especially if you live on the bleeding edge kernel. It takes a firm hand to say no when faced with the powers that may be.
Big tech mega corporations ironically are the biggest code contributors to the kernel. Intel already wanted Linus removed for questioning their kernel commits especially around the hardware RNG driver and Spectre/Meltdown fixes, which coincidentally was when the big fuss about Linus being rude and unprofessional hit mainstream consciousness. Since all the technical information on the hardware implementation side is under NDA, nobody can know why the code is even done that way.
Yes, the GPL license says GPL code must remain GPL after forking and that the license itself does not cover any usage scenarios, only when making transmissible copies.
If I made a copy and gave it to someone else, whether by sale or contract, it has nothing to do with whoever I got it from, they have no say over how it is copied. Likewise to whoever obtained a copy from me, I have no say over what they do with it as long as remains compliant to the GPL.
It is also illegal to add additional terms to the GPL, you must give the same freedoms as you were given.
What if that reports correctly but has nothing to do with if it has been counted or not? There doesn't seem to be a link between tracking and if it was added to the totals.
I trust technology that little.