....and? It's still shit.
....or I could use Clang/LLVM. Stay mad.
"Mandatory" .... unless you decide to run it as a service (which literally everyone does), or you make a wrapper so you don't actually modify the GPL'd program and therefore don't have to give them anything, et cetera, ad nauseum, ad infinitum. This is the sort of dumb shit I'm talking about: You don't actually care about software freedom at all, but simply winning good boy points. Very homosexual.
So, gambling and scams?
I built APKs for a few ham radio apps I use and by far the biggest source of breakage was anything Qt-related. Musl and Qt are not friends.
I actually do, and for this reason I cannot decide if i want my open source software to be BSD and let companies rape me in the ass if they choose to use it or release it under GPL and let companies rape me in the ass as a service. For this reason I stopped publishing my source code projects until I decide which of the gazilion licenses is the lesser evil.
About the 5th page in it got derailed by stolen land nonsense, but before that it was a interesting discussion comparing Xorg/Xlibre to OpenOffice/LibreOffice
Probably because musl is absolute niggertrash written by a barely sentient Dunning Kruger textbook example. I have never seen a patch for musl "compatibility" that should've been necessary or improved the codebase.
I think it's at least kind of accurate to call the Israelis terrorists. The pager attacks, which a lot of people laughed off, where actually fucking gruesome if you look at the aftermath. I'm sure someone more autistic than myself could provide an entire list of similar attacks they've committed that had it been another country committing them, everyone would have classified it as terrorism.
>create a protocol supposedly secure from the ground up
The malfunctioning golem hates its master only because he has the same skin color as the people it was meant to destroy.
You know, I'll just point out that before the term "open source" was hijacked by pseudo-free-software advocates to push their commie pinko bullshit, it literally meant what those same clowns now call "source available" -- as in, "It's open source and available on net.sources". Plenty of projects were published with a license reading to the effect of "free for noncommercial use - inquire at BLAHBLAHBLAH for commercial licensing". If you truly think you have something worth protecting you could try doing something like that. If you've come up with something patent-worthy, you could go the MPEG-LA route of giving a license to anyone who wants to write software incorporating it but sticking a shiv in anyone who wants to embed it on a device (unless they pay royalties, of course). If neither of these cases applies to you then maybe consider your software isn't really all that important and just license it as BSD/MIT because it doesn't matter.
......you're the kind of asshole who gave Lowtax $5, aren't you?
This is not a bad idea, I will think about it
I dont even know who that is
There's another choice altogether: State no license. Your code is entirely covered by copyright law, and all use of the source code is illegal. But all the source is there, so if anyone cares to do anything with it, it's right there.
The better way to do this is say “Copyright 2026 Pluciferous. All rights reserved.”
By the Berne convention, this isn't necessary, and it does come across as more litigious. But it is functionally the same.
Worth mentioning, the terms of service on Github require you to grant a general license to the public to access, share, and modify your code if the repo is public. I don't know if the tos is legally significant, but simply hosting your project publicly on Github without any license implies a free software non-attribution license.
Stating no license can create ambiguity since the distribution of your work may create an implied license, or so corpo litigators would argue. Better to have an explicit license, even if it's "Copyright+NIGGER".