If you are a Linux user, which statistically you are given you read my articles, you have probably stumbled across some of the GNU/Linux *free as in freedom* shill, if you don't know what this is, then I'm gonna briefly explain it to you. Richard Stallman is a huge hippie who created a communist license called the GPL, the GPL is a copyleft license, which means that it attempts to contest the copyright and IP spook by means of circumventing the laws created by them.

Having made that clear, if you are into "ricing" your Linux Desktop, you've probably fell down the Suckless minimalism rabbithole or at least having heard about it at least once, and have found out about articles such as those of Luke Smith, defending the GPL as morally superior to "cucked" licenses. For simplicity, I'll refer to the aforementioned article's terminology, and will call the permissive licenses cucked licenses, eg: the MIT/BSD licenses are cucked, and the GPL is a communist license.

The waiver

I decided hereonwards having had soydevs threatened to DMCA me, I vowed not to do the same to other people--not to police forks of my projects and blatantly backstab those--I hereby grant permission to you, (you may fork it, sell it, turn it into NFT goyslop, I do not care) granted I licensed it with the BSD clause 3 license (a so called cucked license,) therefore, it is not infected by communism

The problem

If you've read carefully the licensing shill, then we are all set for the main event. One might think that the GPL license is the most morally correct license to use in your software project, but that's simply not true, and I'll explain why.

The GPL license gives the authors of the code too much power over the users using their code, we want to empower users by open-sourcing our software, not enslave them, the GPL license is not developer-friendly, simply because there are open-source maintainers that will blatantly police forks of theirs and actively try to shut down attempts of the community to get involved, with a communist license such as the GPL, it is easier for modern scum to become dictators of their own open-source software cult and create an echo chamber for their stupid ideas. These ideas later on spread as disease.

The GPL by forcing derivatives to inherit its restrictions, it lets maintainers wield legal authority like feudal lords. Want to fork a GPL project but you forgot to include a minuscule detail like properly linking the source code? Enjoy your DMCA.

The funniest part is that these feudal lords don't hoard money, they are proof that it is natural to humans to enslave others, they'd do it for free in fact.

Example: ffmpeg vs libav

Let's dissect the shitstorm that these two libraries provoked. First of all, ffmpeg is the original library, but it had a problem with a project dictator, this is a classic example of a GPL'd communist project imploding under authoritative governance. This library is a highly popular library that does black magic I do not understand, and that is a core dependency of media players, the only thing holding these two libraries to being good is that the GPL licensing and the toxicity the developers therefrom emanates--only rivaled to the soydevs writing COCs--and that undermines the community efforts to submit patches, the information I could gather from this Reddit thread suggests that the ffmpeg maintainer had a huge ego, and the libav developers bit the hand that fed them, effectively separating the two projects. The GPL's "free as in freedom" here meant free as in maintainers hijacking communities, not empowering users, and growing a cult. According to the blogpost linked, a maintainer had merged improvements from libav into FFMPEG, because he figured out that waging a war is pointless, competence is good and open source exacerbates that.

Example (2): Pale moon web browser vs some russian dude

Pale moon is allegedly a minimalist web browser, the maintainers tried multiple times to shut down Windows ports of their browser because they stopped supporting Windows, the Pale moon web browser is in itself a fork (Licensed under GPL's slightly less tyranical sister, the Mozilla's MPL,) so I don't think it is strictly necessary to police down forks and threaten to DMCA people when they clearly adhere by your licensing, this is a common tactic by software developers--it's especially funny when they cry about licensing and they have chosen a cucked license instead of a communist license, albeit this was not the case for Pale Moon's--but hold on to it because you will be impressed. Here is a better explained thread on Reddit that explains how these communists are extremely combative and toxic, having said that, I think any decent OS should run the Pale Moon web browser, oh wait, actually Free BSD nuked it from their repos.

Notwithstanding all the shit I've thrown at Pale Moon in this article, I think that all web browsers suck and I have not found a single one that has had no bullshit or telemetry or unintuitive GUIs, if Pale Moon is actually worth it, I'll give it a review, it should run decent on Void Linux, which is my daily drive.

Example (3): When soydevs mald

A soydev once tried to DMCA me over a project's fork, full story here the cherry on-top was that he chose a cucked license, the maintainer who succeeded me and had forked it, did add a copyright notice.

Code of conducts

(taken from LRS)

Code of conduct (COC), also code of coercion or code of censorship, is a shitty invention of SJW fascists that's put up in projects (e.g. software) and which declares how developers of a specific project must behave socially (typically NOT just within the context of the development but also outside of it), generally pushing toxic woke concepts such as forced inclusivity, exclusivity of people with unapproved political opinions or use of politically correct language (newspeak). Sometimes a toxic COC hides under a different name such as social contract, code of "ethics" or mission statement, though not necessarily. COC is typically placed in the project repository as a CODEOFCONDUCT file, but some projects (for example Google's Go language) strategically hide it elsewhere so as to firstly satisfy those who want a COC and trick at least some of those who don't want it into thinking it's not there -- don't be fooled into thinking this is just a matter of chance, it's a matter of public relations and marketing teams who make highly calculated decisions about where to place the COC, how to name the file etc. so as to maximize the number of supporters of the software -- to a corporation this is a decision more important than for example actual quality of the software. In practice COCs are used to establish dictatorship and allow things such as kicking people out of development because of their political opinions expressed anywhere, inside or outside the project, and to push political opinions through software projects. COCs are an indication of tranny software. See also http://techrights.org/2019/04/23/code-of-coercion/.

Conclusions

In the realm of software development, people tend to make idols off of Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds, truth is, open source is neither about communism nor censorship, hell, code of conducts are the devil himself. And it's sad that nowadays people care more about software as a gateway to cults than as software. Open source is not about fighting capitalism, open source is about DIY--and I see nobody forming a cult around gardening or embroidery or carpentry etc--, in my opinion; granted that you somewhat agree with me if you actually eyed the post twice, then you must be intelligent enough to understand why I don't license my code under GPL.