It's more of a theoretical concern than a real one, but there are some possibilities.
Their source is closed and yours is open. They make changes and you make changes. You can't see their changes, but they can definitely see your changes. If they may a certain change first, and they see you make a subsequent change that looks remarkably similar to their changes, they can take you to court for possibly stealing their code.
And before you come back saying "oh, but that will never fly in court" - you would be forgetting that, especially in the US system, it doesn't need to. They just need to make the claim and if you're a small time developer, you cannot afford the legal fees, so you settle.
So far, that hasn't happened. Although out of court settlements often forbid you from talking about it, so maybe we just can't hear about it happening.
First, many GPLd software is a fork, making your assertion empirically false.
Second, GPL does not prevent you from forking, provided the changes made to the fork are made available to people who receive your software.
Third, it is arguable whether having proprietary children increases freedom in any way. It may increase freedom only for the one transfer, but it stops there. GPL tries to get the same freedoms to everyone along the chain. And if there is no chain, like the Linux kernel, that's because people chose to contribute directly to the project instead of forking, which still maximizes the freedom for as many people.
So if he says I prefer BSD license because I don't care about my code
You have a big problem with comprehension. He's not saying it's THE reason why YOU prefer it. He's saying it's a good match IF you don't care what others do with the code. He's talking about what the licence is good for, not about the people who use it.
The freedom of the people who receive those modifications is affected. And if those people want features and bug fixes, your freedom to provide it for them is diminished because you don't know if it's your code or the proprietary code that needs to change and how to change it.
It's completely okay to not care about flow on effects, but please admit you're not thinking about the big picture.
Really? Tell us which other president had to endure questions over his birth, and even after producing undeniable evidence? Tell us which other president gets accused of being a Muslim? The only one I could think comes closest is Kennedy, but even his Catholicism didn't get used as a suggestion he couldn't be president in a country that supposedly bans religious tests for public office.
I bet almost everyone of you would quit your job if someone at work (who you can't get fired) kept hounding you over things completely unrelated to your work, let alone hundreds of people doing that everyday.
That said, if somebody is behaving violently, sometimes that is reason to kill them.
Uh no. Unless they are actually about to kill someone, then no. EVEN IF it looks like another person may get punched a few times, that is still not a reason to kill someone.
If we follow what you just said however, then the cops had no business shooting at the Pulse Nightclub shooter, and they should have just asked him to lay down his weapons and turn himself in.
Only if you're an idiot who can't tell the difference between a positive statement and a negative statement. I only said someone being violent is not a reason to kill them. I never said never kill anyone even if they are violent. LEARN THE DIFFERENCE.
Reflect on it for a minute and then come back and explain to me why you feel that you aren't a racist.
Don't need a minute. What I said isn't racist because I didn't say anything "whites should get what's coming to them".
Your inability to tell the difference between a negative and positive statement is becoming a theme here.
You would consider it racist because you set up a hypocritical position where anyone who points out there is a imbalance between races are racists themselves. But apparently you don't reflect on your statements.
So when police claim they are always reaching for the gun, you'll believe them no question, despite mounting video evidence that is almost never the case.
Good to know so many people on Slashdot are in support of a literal police state.
Considering that cops killing black people have shown to be not correlated with black crime rates, it's looking very likely to be a rule. Keep denying facts all you want.
Only a fucking retard would take the name "Black Lives Matter" and completely disregard the context out of which it arose and then judge it purely based on the name and get angry about it.
How is it Apples vs Oranges? It's money, you fucking idiot. There's no "apple money" vs "orange money". $196 billion is always a smaller amount than $379 billion. My point, which is obvious if people didn't want things spoon fed to them all the time, is that the F-35 program is a complete waste of time and money, especially when considering the Space Shuttle program (and NASA in general) was often denigrated as wasteful pork spending but managed to achieve much more for a lot less.
Slashdot Mirror
It's more of a theoretical concern than a real one, but there are some possibilities.
Their source is closed and yours is open. They make changes and you make changes. You can't see their changes, but they can definitely see your changes. If they may a certain change first, and they see you make a subsequent change that looks remarkably similar to their changes, they can take you to court for possibly stealing their code.
And before you come back saying "oh, but that will never fly in court" - you would be forgetting that, especially in the US system, it doesn't need to. They just need to make the claim and if you're a small time developer, you cannot afford the legal fees, so you settle.
So far, that hasn't happened. Although out of court settlements often forbid you from talking about it, so maybe we just can't hear about it happening.
First, many GPLd software is a fork, making your assertion empirically false.
Second, GPL does not prevent you from forking, provided the changes made to the fork are made available to people who receive your software.
Third, it is arguable whether having proprietary children increases freedom in any way. It may increase freedom only for the one transfer, but it stops there. GPL tries to get the same freedoms to everyone along the chain. And if there is no chain, like the Linux kernel, that's because people chose to contribute directly to the project instead of forking, which still maximizes the freedom for as many people.
So if he says I prefer BSD license because I don't care about my code
You have a big problem with comprehension. He's not saying it's THE reason why YOU prefer it. He's saying it's a good match IF you don't care what others do with the code. He's talking about what the licence is good for, not about the people who use it.
He's talking about Linux as the KERNEL, genius. You know, since it's what he WORKS ON.
The freedom of the people who receive those modifications is affected. And if those people want features and bug fixes, your freedom to provide it for them is diminished because you don't know if it's your code or the proprietary code that needs to change and how to change it.
It's completely okay to not care about flow on effects, but please admit you're not thinking about the big picture.
Really? Tell us which other president had to endure questions over his birth, and even after producing undeniable evidence? Tell us which other president gets accused of being a Muslim? The only one I could think comes closest is Kennedy, but even his Catholicism didn't get used as a suggestion he couldn't be president in a country that supposedly bans religious tests for public office.
I bet almost everyone of you would quit your job if someone at work (who you can't get fired) kept hounding you over things completely unrelated to your work, let alone hundreds of people doing that everyday.
I doubt anyone of you would survive the abuse Obama got over the two terms he's been in office.
We already require licenses for cars, and your argument would apply there as well.
It seems we'll need to introduce licences for autopilot features. Until a driver can demonstrate they're not stupid, they are not licensed to sue it.
Black on black homicide is high, therefore cops should have equal rights to kill black people. Okay.
That said, if somebody is behaving violently, sometimes that is reason to kill them.
Uh no. Unless they are actually about to kill someone, then no. EVEN IF it looks like another person may get punched a few times, that is still not a reason to kill someone.
If we follow what you just said however, then the cops had no business shooting at the Pulse Nightclub shooter, and they should have just asked him to lay down his weapons and turn himself in.
Only if you're an idiot who can't tell the difference between a positive statement and a negative statement. I only said someone being violent is not a reason to kill them. I never said never kill anyone even if they are violent. LEARN THE DIFFERENCE.
Reflect on it for a minute and then come back and explain to me why you feel that you aren't a racist.
Don't need a minute. What I said isn't racist because I didn't say anything "whites should get what's coming to them".
Your inability to tell the difference between a negative and positive statement is becoming a theme here.
You would consider it racist because you set up a hypocritical position where anyone who points out there is a imbalance between races are racists themselves. But apparently you don't reflect on your statements.
And I was talking about more than just that one case.
Which explains why cops can just say "they were attacking me" and idiots will believe them without question.
So obviously, you would allow riot control police to just start shooting everyone in the crowd.
It's funny and concerning how so many people are willing to let the police be the judge, jury and executioner.
Classic tactic: racists calling everyone else the racist.
Here's a hint: someone being violent is NOT a reason to kill them. Bunch of fascists suggesting that it's okay to kill anyone just for being violent.
Cops have been shown to lie under oath. Good to know you'll just accept whatever cops say without question.
So many Slashdotters want a literal police state these days.
So when police claim they are always reaching for the gun, you'll believe them no question, despite mounting video evidence that is almost never the case.
Good to know so many people on Slashdot are in support of a literal police state.
Considering that cops killing black people have shown to be not correlated with black crime rates, it's looking very likely to be a rule. Keep denying facts all you want.
I love how arseholes love to ignore the many other examples where they were killed despite obviously not being a threat at all.
But the point is they weren't using acceptable lethal force. Have you been hiding under a fucking rock, you ignoramus?
So killing someone without trial is okay in your book.
Good to know you support a literal police state where police can kill anyone because idiots like you will support them.
What word did I use incorrectly?
How about stop the initial overreaction in the first place and stop defending the initial overreaction?
Only a fucking retard would take the name "Black Lives Matter" and completely disregard the context out of which it arose and then judge it purely based on the name and get angry about it.
Or he's just a kid who used a word wrongly. Why don't we dredge up every piece of shit thing you said when you were in school and hold you to it?
How is it Apples vs Oranges? It's money, you fucking idiot. There's no "apple money" vs "orange money". $196 billion is always a smaller amount than $379 billion. My point, which is obvious if people didn't want things spoon fed to them all the time, is that the F-35 program is a complete waste of time and money, especially when considering the Space Shuttle program (and NASA in general) was often denigrated as wasteful pork spending but managed to achieve much more for a lot less.