Anonymous Remailer (austria)
mixmaster at remailer.privacy.at
Tue Jun 19 20:21:01 UTC 2012
> GPL protects the freedom of the programmer who licensed his
> code under those licenses: He wants it to be free for use,
> but not to be turned into closed source products.
What a lying sonofabitch. That is not called freedom. That is called
"forcible, viral open source". I think we can all see the difference. Open
your motherfucking eyes, communist goofball...
> A programmer who does not want to raise this barrier will
> typically use the BSD license which is "more free".
No, it's just plain "free."
> BSDL in opposite is often criticized a "rape me license".
No, it is not, except perhaps by lying atheist Marxist bastards and his
> It explicitely (!) allows creating derivates in a closed
> source manner. This means that parts of BSD licensed code
> can be a key component in a proprietary closed source
> product that is for sale (e. g. a firewall appliance),
> and nobody will find out about that fact.
Now you got it! GPL is about forcing people to do what /you/ want and BSD is
about letting them do what /they/ want. Let's see if you can guess which one
of those licenses is about freedom. Hint: freedom is not defined as forcing
people to do what you want.
More information about the freebsd-questions