/tech/ - Technology

It gets worse: Biden Executive Order 14071, which this move is attempting to comply with, seems to be prohibiting not just the acceptance of code from foreign national contributors but the actual distribution of libre software based on economic sanctions.

https://ofac.treasury.gov/faqs/1185
>IT consultancy and design services include the development and implementation of software, as well as assistance or advice relating to the development and implementation of software, including the supply and installation of bespoke software.
So this is not just an attack on Linux, this is an attack on the GPL and any other free software license directed at US law. The US government is now claiming it has the purview to restrict the distribution of free software.

>>13245
>Torvalds himself is playing along with this enthusiastically because of his own moronic Finnish national politics.

***** ***** ***** *****!

Okay then it should be immediately forked. Or the devs should just submit the patches and not be Russian about it.

God dammit the US has to ruin *****ing everything.

Okay I read this news and panicked, but the patch appears to be removing developers' names from the MAINTAINERS file, so it's more like they lose being credited for their work and they are no longer in charge of maintaining those files. However their work does not appear to be removed.

Linus's statement is disgusting though, I think I still respect him as a programmer but *****ing hell this take is such garbage:

> Ok, lots of Russian trolls out and about.
>
> It's entirely clear why the change was done, it's not getting
> reverted, and using multiple random anonymous accounts to try to
> "grass root" it by Russian troll factories isn't going to change
> anything.
>
> And FYI for the actual innocent bystanders who aren't troll farm
> accounts - the "various compliance requirements" are not just a US
> thing.
>
> If you haven't heard of Russian sanctions yet, you should try to read
> the news some day. And by "news", I don't mean Russian
> state-sponsored spam.
>
> As to sending me a revert patch - please use whatever mush you call
> brains. I'm Finnish. Did you think I'd be *supporting* Russian
> aggression? Apparently it's not just lack of real news, it's lack of
> history knowledge too.
>
> Linus

>>13248
I've considered Linus to be a bulwark against idpol saboteurs for a while, but now it's clear his brain has been colonized by NATO, which may end up being an even worse avenue of sabotage against Linux.

>>13248
I'm wrong, there are code changes in the reverted patch too:

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/patch/?id=c55228220dd33e7627ad9736b6fce4df5

Oh ***** this is bad guys, this is really *****ing bad, this breaks the whole premise of free and open source software for me

>>13250
Why would this be done without any debate or discussion or anything? If you guys can find any dev discussion about it PLEASE link it.

>>13246
>So this is not just an attack on Linux, this is an attack on the GPL and any other free software license directed at US law. The US government is now claiming it has the purview to restrict the distribution of free software.
Yes but it mostly sounds like retarded political BS.

Russian coders now submit patches to the Russian linux kernel, and American coders submit patches to the American Linux Kernel. And each side will liberate quality code from the other side and claim it as their own, a bit like technology espionage in the first cold-war, first as a tragedy, then as a farce.
Everybody has to make angry nationalism noises, but in the end it's just technology and the only metric that counts is whether it works or not.

Obviously it's always important to make sure nobody smuggles anything malicious into the code base, but it's not like checking the nationality of somebody tells you anything about code quality.

Eventually everybody will get tired of neocon-brain where people have to pretend that "fighting the enemy" is motivating, and it will get tedious doing all the extra steps for the nationalism rituals. And then this shit goes away again.

>>13247
>Or the devs should just submit the patches and not be Russian about it.
Lol that's the spirit.

>God dammit the US has to ruin *****ing everything.
It's mostly self sabotage, like that stunt where they *****ed with chips that use the RISC-5 micro-processor instruction set. All of a sudden that was considered Chinesium. It's all bullshit, the RISC-5 foundation is located in Switzerland by the way.

The Chinese went through this phase in the mid 2010s. They quickly figured out that all their customers did not want the special Chinese flavor tech and went back to vanilla tech.

The Chinese have the excuse that they had not done this, and this was a new experience. In the west the national fervor has been done before there is no excuse for being retarded more than once.

>>13249
the thing is NATO is in the process of dissolving because they're alienating Turkey out of the alliance. When the Turks leave NATO will become defunct in Europe and all the EU military alliances will have to be remade. So if that's what's causing this chaos, it seems like *****ing shit up on the way out.

>>13250
Are they doing this to destroy the Linux project ?
Is this an attack ?

>>13253
>>13253
The Linux project is AFAIK being explicitly racist and until I have a technical reason to not admit patches from Russians that is going to be my take.

But no, I don't see this as destroying the project, more like gatekeeping it and opening it up to a fork.

A fork would eventually become incompatible with the main project through. So that is absolutely scary when you think of Linux as simply a subsystem that let's you use your compute components in peace.

>>13252
>Russian coders now submit patches to the Russian linux kernel, and American coders submit patches to the American Linux Kernel.
I hope this isn't already the case and they can work around this somehow. Software was never supposed to be political and that's kind of the compromise we had with free and open source licenses like GNU: it is a socialist model of production but it's never explicitly applied to things other than software. That was the social contract that allowed open source to exist under the capitalist mode of production (and explicitly by the licence be exploited for profit). So the fact that there is a western reaction to this development model undermines all future open source development and this deeply affects my life. This is shit. I trusted Linus and he's not even giving a single reason for his behaviour.

The problem with a mess of nationalist forks is that it's going to make Linux much more vulnerable to security exploits. People have been critiquing the always-increasing size of the kernel as an obstacle to reasonable code audits for a while now, but needing to audit multiple different isolated projects is going to become much more of a headache.

More context here (it's sanctions like OP said):

https://lore.kernel.org/all/7ee74c1b5b589619a13c6318c9fbd0d6ac7c334a.camel@HansenPartnership.com/

>>13245
OpenSaucers btfo once again
Really like how our corpwhore mr. Kurwalds've gone on the traditional jewropean kike-seeking rampage in that passage kek

>>13255
>The Linux project is AFAIK being explicitly racist and until I have a technical reason to not admit patches from Russians that is going to be my take.
You have a point that this is prejudice, but it's not really the Linux project that's doing this, apparently there's a strange new law or decree that's making them do this.

>But no, I don't see this as destroying the project, more like gatekeeping it and opening it up to a fork.
>A fork would eventually become incompatible with the main project through. So that is absolutely scary when you think of Linux as simply a subsystem that let's you use your compute components in peace.
I see a potential problem if this becomes some kind of angle to influence personality choices of the project.

However i don't see a fragmentation issue. First of all free-software is already fragmented. It might lead to a situation where there is an international linux fork that collects all the contributions, and downstream from that are the national linux forks that do the compliance dance. Like if the US government is spooked about code contributions from Russians (for irrational reasons like racist prejudice, political bluster or whatever), that means that American hands have to re-implement these code snippets. You don't need identical code to keep compatibility. And the spooky "Russian joojoo" would be "quarantined" in the international fork. I know all of this is pants on head retarded, computer code is basically just applied math which is as close to a pure neutral universal as you can get. There is no specifically Russian way to write code the same way there is no specifically Russian way to count, add and subtract numbers.

There is a decent chance that this shit is just political circus. If they were genuinely concerned about somebody spiking software, they would fund a research project to build sophisticated code review software, that could detect "cloaked malware features". My guess is, there are distinctive patterns in malware-code that can be brute-forced with statistical analysis. I also think there is a path to build AI-code-digestion that you feed your "organic code" and it refactors that code to make it nearly flawless "synthetic code".

Whelp, there it is. ***** you Linus.

>>13260
Holy ***** you retard kill yourself.

Are we going to have a NATO Linux and a BRICS Linux, a NATO LibreOffice and a BRICS LibreOffice, and so on for every other piece of free software from now on?

>>13268
Yeah none of this makes any sense, operating systems and programs are just tools.
There is no difference between a NATO hammer or a BRICS hammer either, i think this is performative.

I guess that the best thing to do is to figure out how to use this as an opportunity to extract more funding for FOSS development.

>>13268
Honestly yes. If China gets indigenous chips that rival American ones, but Linux doesn't mainline changes for them, then either you will have to manually patch the kernel and build it (which I guess some users are already used to, like Gentoo users, but I haven't had to do this manually on my system in my 15 something years of using Linux, I've only had to rebuild it with different configuration flags) or the kernel will get forked. A fork puts more burden on the maintainers and in general splits the user community so there's a reason it's known as the 'F' word in open source. It's definitely a last-resort option.

Tbh I knew that Linux was in bed with corporations for a long time now, I mean the largest tech companies all run all of their shit on top of open source, so it's not a surprise, but I should have realized sooner that they're not going to be above western control. And I don't see kind of other underground politics-free organization taking over, the job is just to big, involves too many people and industries to skirt the law.

>>13265
Interesting perspective.
He thinks there will be 2 separate software spheres.

A iron software-curtain probably isn't in our favor, because it looks like we might end up on the side with fewer software devs. Maybe not immediately but in the near future.

While this is sad, I feel like it might be a good time for each of those devs removed from the project to look into contributing to OpenBSD. Long story short, they had to deal with a lot of this political stuff back in the day about encryption… they won.

>>13272
Why, so they can have their free labor taken and exploited by a porky without giving anything back? OpenBSD is a cuck distro with a cuck license. The only BSD project worth contributing to is the HyperbolaBSD project, if that ever actually gets off the ground.

>>13273
>Why, so they can have their free labor taken and exploited by a porky without giving anything back?
The GPL doesn't stop corpos making money from your code. It's a stupid myth propagated by stupid people who either don't understand the license or the software business or both.

>>13270
>either you will have to manually patch the kernel and build it (which I guess some users are already used to, like Gentoo users, but I haven't had to do this manually on my system in my 15 something years of using Linux, I've only had to rebuild it with different configuration flags) or the kernel will get forked.
That's the world we already live in for almost every non-x86 device. The vendor makes their own patches against linux to support their weird hardware and then you either download a pre-built kernel from their website or build it yourself with a framework like yocto. Most of that code never gets upstreamed and dies when the vendor stops selling that particular hardware.

>>13275
>The GPL doesn't stop corpos making money from your code.
Did you miss the "without giving anything back" bit? This is exactly why greedy corpos avoid viral copyleft licenses like the plague. They effectively curtail the commodification of code labor for their given project by irreversibly reducing the socially necessarily labor required to make a piece of software. It's certainly true that a software capitalist can sell a piece of copyleft software written by someone else, but just as if they had sold a mud pie for $100, they will be simply be uncut by a competitor who charges nothing for the same thing since it took them the same amount of trivial labor to produce (pressing ctrl-c, ctrl-v). Groups like Canonical and Redhat don't make money by selling the GPL software itself, they're selling the service of tech support.

I agree that the licenses for open BSD sucks, but so does the GPL V 2 licenses for Linux, it allows the lock down of devices it powers. This is why most cell phones these days have locked boot-loaders.

With that being said I too am very hopeful that hyperbola BSD is successful in their efforts. The reason that I suggested OpenBSD is because they do have a long history of defying government request.

Not to mention that OpenBSD nor HyperboliaBSD is a “distro” in fact to my knowledge none of the bsds claim to be distros.

In short I do agree with you though, the OpenBSD licenses does suck, but we really need to keep the governments away from the code, currently to my knowledge the Openbsd team is probably the best ones for that… Now if enough linux devs got upset and forked could they sure, but Linux is mostly written by the very corps that take the code from openbsd so that is rather unlikely.

– I do sincerely hope that hyperbola’s plans come to reality a gpl v3 kernel could do a lot of good.

Things continue to escalate. Now the Linux Foundation is banning non-Russians for protesting their ban of Russians.

>>13276
>Did you miss the "without giving anything back" bit?
The GPL doesn't force them to "give anything back" either.

>This is exactly why greedy corpos avoid viral copyleft licenses like the plague.
I guess Google, Facebook, Samsung, Intel, AMD, ARM, Nvidia are not greedy corpos then.
https://news.itsfoss.com/huawei-kernel-contribution/

>It's certainly true that a software capitalist can sell a piece of copyleft software
This is what I meant when I said you don't understand the business. You literally think selling software like Windows and Microsoft Office is the only way to make money from software when some of the biggest corpos in the world (Google, Amazon, etc.) are built entirely on linux.

>>13280
>You literally think X
>no, I won't quote the part of your short post illustrating exactly the opposite of this straw man
I have no idea why you've decided to argue in such bad faith anon, but this doesn't exactly inspire me to engage with it.

>>13280
>The GPL doesn't force them to "give anything back" either.
You have to release any changes you made to the software if you distribute that software to users under the GPLv2.

>>13270
>>13275
I just realized something: whatever software that people choose to engage with is the winner, ultimately. Just like in a crypto blockchain, everyone running a node "decides" what is the true trunk of the tree.

Or put it another way, if you and I decide to use a fork of Linux that doesn't care about US sanctions, then we will be contributing to that fork's success. And using it (and reporting bugs, incompatibilities and making sure it's either the default or easily available and up-to-date in your favorite distro) is much more important than posting about what you like or don't like.

So I think if there is a fork make sure you switch. If the fork becomes the more widely used version, then anyone sane will jump ship.

I'm kind of losing hope that the maintainers will defy the laws they live under, so I just have to accept the fact that a fork is on the table at this point.

>>13270
>the job is just to big, involves too many people and industries to skirt the law.
>>13283
>I'm kind of losing hope that the maintainers will defy the laws they live under
The majority of the neocon sanctions are illegal, certainly under international law, but frequently also under national law. I'm not so sure if it would technically be illegal to ignore this. I'm not delusional, random programmers don't have the political clout to challenge this, but bigger fish probably can.

Keep in mind shit like this isn't just stirring up shit in the FOSS community, it's inflicting massive damage on industries. Even industry giants like Intel and NVIDIA got *****ed over by this. And it's by no means limited to the tech sector.

The sanctions have turned out to be the most destructive industrial sabotage the west has ever suffered in peace-time. Usually you'd get hanged for treason for causing a tiny fraction of a percent of the damage.

Don't loose hope just yet, it might go away.

My hope for this is that it shifts control over Linux away from the notoriously corporate captured Linux Foundation.

>>13284
>The majority of the neocon sanctions are illegal, certainly under international law, but frequently also under national law. I'm not so sure if it would technically be illegal to ignore this. I'm not delusional, random programmers don't have the political clout to challenge this, but bigger fish probably can.

You're actually very right, now I'm pissed that Linus didn't say they would even try to fight these decisions or use the Linux Foundation (which has a ***** ton of money, like 250 million $ / year) to lobby or sue the government.

This is such a lame response compared to *****ing fighting:
> Again, we're really sorry it's come to this, but all of the Linux
> infrastructure and a lot of its maintainers are in the US and we can't
> ignore the requirements of US law. We are hoping that this action
> alone will be sufficient to satisfy the US Treasury department in
> charge of sanctions and we won't also have to remove any existing
> patches.

(from https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/e7d548a7fc835f9f3c9cb2e5ed97dfdfa164813f.camel@HansenPartnership.com)

>>13287
Also they should just move their infrastructure then. FFS open source is for everyone!

>The sanctions have turned out to be the most destructive industrial sabotage the west has ever suffered in peace-time.

I've heard some stuff the west has been doing being called a controlled demolition of the economy. But for stuff like this it's probably just ignorance, short-shortsightedness and greed. I don't want to underestimate the bourgeoisie but they are powerful because they can force changes like this, not because they know what they're doing.

>>13287
My hope for this is that it shifts control over Linux away from the notoriously corporate captured Linux Foundation.
In your opinion what would be a better organization for the Linux kernel ?

>>13287
>You're actually very right, now I'm pissed that Linus didn't say they would even try to fight these decisions or use the Linux Foundation (which has a ***** ton of money, like 250 million $ / year) to lobby or sue the government.
Yeah that's big for a FOSS project, but it's small potatoes in the grand scheme of things. It's not realistic that the Linux foundation can bully the neocons to halt the sanctions madness. The neocons *****ed over several huge trillion dollar companies too. So it'll require a much broader effort.

>>13288
>I've heard some stuff the west has been doing being called a controlled demolition of the economy. But for stuff like this it's probably just ignorance, short-shortsightedness and greed. I don't want to underestimate the bourgeoisie but they are powerful because they can force changes like this, not because they know what they're doing.
I think it's both there are lots of morons that wreck shit out of ignorance, but the harder core of the neocons, IMHO they're doing it on purpose.

The hardcore neocons might as well be a faction in the fictional War-hammer 40k universe. Basically they think along the lines that everybody should work for the war-industry, all the surplus that society produces should be spend on the means for conquering. Except for a small luxury sector that produces things they can buy with the money they make from owning war-stocks. The workers get the military surplus crumbs off the war-industry, you know tents, rations and re-died uniforms in civilian colors. The neocons see them selves as some kind of warrior-priests that all of society should rally behind, and their role is to "maintain battle-moral" meaning stirring up hatred and making up lies to manufacture consent for war. They think that it should be permanent total war, until they rule everything in existence.

When the first cold-war ended with an entente, the military budgets went way down, and a lot of surplus was re-directed from the war-industry to civilian consumer commodities. We called that the peace dividend. The neocons took it extremely badly, we got lots of new consumer toys, and they got fewer military toys. Hence why they probably do want to "demolish" civilian consumer industries. You know that type of resentment: ***** your quality of life, your purpose is suffering for the glory of the empire

>>13289
>Basically they think along the lines that everybody should work for the war-industry, all the surplus that society produces should be spend on the means for conquering.
If that were actually true, we would have a functioning war industry capable of pumping out enough shells to compete with Russia in a proxy war. But instead the war industry is only about profitability: selling the newest tech boondoggle, getting the most lucrative contracts, etc. I don't think they're true believers along those lines to the extent that they actually have any interest in structuring the war industry to win a conventional war. The neocons are simply high on imperial hubris: they're true believers in Reagan's "shining city on a hill" bullshit, and the massive self-delusion about their own greatness is what drives their foreign policy.

>>13290
>If that were actually true, we would have a functioning war industry capable of pumping out enough shells to compete with Russia in a proxy war.
Being able to produce large numbers of a thing, be that artillery shells or other stuff, requires having a efficient industrial production system. Which doesn't seem possible under Neo-liberal economic doctrine. The neocons increasing the share of the surplus pie for militarism, does not actually mean you get lots of weapons, it just means more surplus gets spend on it.
>But instead the war industry is only about profitability: selling the newest tech boondoggle, getting the most lucrative contracts, etc.
There you said it your self.
>I don't think they're true believers along those lines to the extent that they actually have any interest in structuring the war industry to win a conventional war.
Your right most of them are opportunists, but there are true beleivers in there too.
>The neocons are simply high on imperial hubris: they're true believers in Reagan's "shining city on a hill" bullshit, and the massive self-delusion about their own greatness is what drives their foreign policy.
That's true but it doesn't contradict anything i said.

ITT

Software developers no one cares and their fans about demand attention for no good reason

>>13292
No one cares… but they have fans?

>>13292
bait
obviously if nobody cared, there wouldn't be any sanctions *****ery.

>>13293
yes people got so mad they had to spin at 3600 rpm to cool off.

>>13255
>I hope this isn't already the case and they can work around this somehow.
Yeah true dat

>Software was never supposed to be political
Other types of technology stayed out of politics, we gotta figure out how they did that.

>the compromise we had with free and open source licenses like GNU: it is a socialist model of production but it's never explicitly applied to things other than software. That was the social contract that allowed open source to exist under the capitalist mode of production (and explicitly by the licence be exploited for profit).
I would say that free software is definitely the progressive (in the original meaning of the word progress as in advancing civilization to a higher level) part of capitalism. While proprietary software is regressive, in the sense that it seeks to regress social relations to feudalism.
I would say that free software is definitely compatible with socialism, but i would consider it a production method, not a full blown mode of production.

>So the fact that there is a western reaction to this development model undermines all future open source development and this deeply affects my life. This is shit.
I don't know how much of this was malice and how much incompetence , but if the US really goes on the attack against software freedom, eventually all the good software devs will go live in a country that grants software freedom.

>>13282
>You have to release any changes you made to the software if you distribute that software to users under the GPLv2.
And most corpos who use GPL software don't distribute it so they are under no legal obligation to "give anything back". It makes zero difference to Google if linux was GPL or BSD, they took open source code, made proprietary changes, made billions of dollars with it and there's nothing the GPL can do about it. People who talk about "cuck license" are either lying to you or don't know what they're talking about.

>>13281
>I have no idea why you've decided to argue in such bad faith anon, but this doesn't exactly inspire me to engage with it.
You're just making excuses because you realized you're wrong and don't want to admit it.

>>13299
Google has no choice but to fund open source development. They fund firefox for example. Almost all work going into the kernel is paid for by huge companies like Google and Intel.

Yes they profit off if it, and that was explicitly the deal of allowing a more social approach to such work under capitalism.

>>13300
>Google has no choice but to fund open source development.
If your argument is that the economics of open source makes it more profitable for google to collaborate with linux instead of keeping a private fork then that's correct. If your argument is that the GPL is somehow forcing google to release code they don't want to release then you are wrong.

>>13299
>>13302
You seem to have a misconception about how the GPL and other copyleft licenses work. The point is that not just that the original work must include its source code with distribution, it's that any modifications made to the software also continue to retain its "viral" license demanding source code with distribution. This is what people mean when they talk about GPL software modifiers being forced to give something back: if Google or anyone else makes a modification to GPL software, and then tries to distribute it in some way, they have to provide the changes they've made in the form of source code or they can face litigation from GPL enforcers. This is why most corporate projects avoid GPL stuff like the plague and even try to pre-empt their coders from contributing to GPL projects in their non-work free time with draconian intellectual work employee agreements. This is the key difference between the GPL and for example a BSD license. When Apple takes something from a BSD project for example and sticks it in their OS, they're able to re-enclose the software and turn it back into uninspectable proprietary software. That is why BSD licenses are otherwise known as Cuck Licenses. Because they allow someone to profit off your labor without giving anything back let alone paying you for services rendered.

While it is true that there are almost certainly many cases of greedy corporations getting away with redistributing modified GPL code without including the source to the modifications they've made simply because there aren't enough lawyers out there working to enforce licenses, they are violating the law when they do it and they can be compelled to stop in civil law litigation.

>>13303
>makes a modification to GPL software, and then tries to distribute it in some way, they have to provide the changes they've made in the form of source code or they can face litigation from GPL enforcers. This is why most corporate projects avoid GPL stuff like the plague
Are you implying this is rational ? I think that those companies that avoid the GPL are doing it for pigheaded reasons. The gpl is basically just a guarantee that you'll play nice and not rug-pull , that's going to attract a lot more contributions, not just the one-time bug-fix from random programmers but it's also security and stability that enables other companies to make more substantial contributions.

>even try to pre-empt their coders from contributing to GPL projects in their non-work free time with draconian intellectual work employee agreements.
That seems illegitimate, like making somebody sign a contract that entitles you to their first born son. You can't ban people from having a hobby.

>>13305
The standard employment contract for inventors and researchers is now that their inventions belong to the company as long as they're employed by that company. The main reason is it's hard to prove something was invented at a certain time of day (inspiration isn't guaranteed to happen between 9-5), and software code is seen as an extension to that logic. In addition to doing it for greedy repressive cyberpunk reasons, companies feel like they have to do this simply to avoid situations where they have big success on something and then a disgruntled employee comes out of the woodwork and hits them with a lawsuit demanding compensation for copyright that belongs to them personally. If you don't have it in writing that all the copyrights of an employee's intellectual work belong to you, it's hard to make a case out of this in court.

>>13307
In effect that means that copy-"right" doesn't apply to individual people anymore only to companies. All the legal first principles are tied to persons, which means copy-"right" negates it self, because if you take it away from persons, all the other legal stuff that's build on top of it evaporates.

If somebody says that they have invented something in their free time, and you accuse them of having stolen "company-time" to do the inventing, they don't have to prove their innocence. I know that's very inconvenient. However innocent until proven guilty is the bedrock of legal justice. If you turn that off all laws disappear.

Technically copy-"right" isn't a right, it's a state granted monopoly, legalese is difficult to decipher but i think that means companies would be contradicting the state in this case. If you can neutralize copy monopolies with a labor agreement, that means there is a loop-hole in there somewhere that can switch off all copy-"right"

On balance I don't see any practicality in this, if you tell somebody
<All your idea are belong to us
You create a bunch of disgruntled inventors. And it's not like they can't just tell their brilliant ideas to somebody else who then releases it in to the public domain. You know if i can't have exclusivity, nobody can.

From a Marxist perspective, this is not hiring wage-labor, this economic relation is slavery. Because the difference between a slave and wage worker is that the wage-worker sells it's labor power by the hour and the slave's labor-power is purchased hole-sale. The bourgoisie and the slave aristocracy were enemies, and therefor bourgeois law is designed to negate stuff like this. I think in bourgeois parlance this would boil down to infringing on the right of other capitalists to hire anybody they want to invent something for them. There were non-compete clauses in labor-agreements and those were canned for that reason. You know you can't just call dibs on the labor-power.

>>13303
>license demanding source code with distribution
And what you don't understand is that corops make money from software without distributing it.

>This is why most corporate projects avoid GPL stuff like the plague
Literally every corporate project uses linux. It's always the people who accuse others of not knowing what they're talking about who know the least.

>Because they allow someone to profit off your labor without giving anything back
The GPL also allows someone to profit off your labor without giving anything back. That's why calling BSD a cuck license is stupid, by your logic all open source is cuckery.