This hilarious meme continues to prove itself correct again and again https://lukesmith.xyz/articles/why-i-use-the-gpl-and-not-cuc...

▲

neutronicus 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Does that blog post have a glowing smiley face with "A BUNCH OF N***ERS" written in on it in pixelated text?

Would think twice about linking that one in polite company.

▲

lynndotpy 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

In case it is pertinent for anyone clicking, the source article does not censor the text, but it is a little blurry in the image.

▲

MSFT_Edging 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Not defending it, but the meme itself is derivative quote from the developer of TempleOS. He suffered from Schizophrenia and believed the CIA was tracking him. He believed you could tell a CIA agent due to them glowing, and would refer to them as "glowy nwords" very regularly.

The term "glowy" has taken on a life of its own despite the original context. The image itself is from it's 4chan days. Probably poor taste to include a version with Terry's full quote.

▲

switchbak 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

"Probably poor taste" ... it's the fuckin N word, in the context of software licenses. Of course it's in poor taste, that's putting it mildly.

The whole thing reeks of 14 year old turned 38 year old smelly edgelord nonsense, not something I would post, that's for sure.

▲

kstrauser 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm sympathetic to Terry saying that. The guy had measurable brain damage, and it's hard to blame someone for doing things when it's their damaged brain that decides to do them. It's like getting mad at a diabetic for having high blood sugar.

But I can certainly squint at other people when they spread Terry's quotes and memes.

▲

bluefirebrand 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> But I can certainly squint at other people when they spread Terry's quotes and memes

Someone can use language you disagree with but still have a point if you dig past it. I also happen to personally think it's important to engage with this sort of thinker at least sometimes

Insisting on polite, formal language can be a type of bigotry too you know. It's historically pretty classist, and lately also indicates a sort of neuronormative bigotry.

Idk, some food for thought

▲

switchbak 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Wait - not conversing with someone who thinks it's fine to post the N word is now classist and some kind of neuro-whateverthefuck bigotry?

No it's not, it's enforcing the norms of civil discourse. If they have some kind of actual underlying issue that causes this and it's legit beyond their control - then sure, go the extra mile and try to meet them where they are.

If on the other hand, it's some annoying person who likes ruffling feathers on purpose - I really think they ought to be ostracized for such behaviour.

▲

kstrauser 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Right?! I feel like we must be being trolled.

Short of something like the recent event with the chap with Tourette's saying awful things at the BAFTA awards, or Terry Davis with schizophrenia saying outlandish stuff, there aren't many scenarios where I'd be willing to give someone a pass on this.

If you have the ability to choose not to use the n-word, and you're not in a group that can use it self-referentially among your peers, and you use it anyway, then you're an asshole and I don't really care to hear what else you have to say. I feel pretty OK with that blanket assessment.

	▲	bluefirebrand 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Short of something like the recent event with the chap with Tourette's saying awful things at the BAFTA awards, or Terry Davis with schizophrenia saying outlandish stuff, there aren't many scenarios where I'd be willing to give someone a pass on this. "There are some scenarios where you might want to give people a pass for reasons outside their control" is literally the only point I was trying to make So I guess we are in violent agreement? Edit: also, you will never actually discover which people you should give the benefit of the doubt if you categorically dismiss anyone who uses language you dislike

▲

bluefirebrand 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> No it's not, it's enforcing the norms of civil discourse

You don't see how that is exclusionary to people who struggle with norms?

I guess if you're born neurodivergent and can't handle social norms, you don't deserve any kind of grace. You can't ever contribute anything worthwhile or meaningful if you don't live up to all of society's polite norms. Good to know

Never change Hacker News

▲

kstrauser an hour ago | parent [-]

Oh behalf of the neurodivergent people surrounding me, 100% of whom successfully resist any temptation to say the n-word in my presence that they may ever feel, it's reprehensible that you're conflating racism and neurodiversity. I've never, not once, ever, heard someone blame their racism on ADHD.

	▲	bluefirebrand 6 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		You've never encountered someone who is pretty autistic and doesn't care about (or perhaps understand) the social consequences of using slurs? Or someone bipolar who gets kind of erratic and can say really out of character stuff when they are going through a manic episode? Or someone with tourettes that might say something that pops in their head unexpectedly? Sure thing about ADHD. You're right that people with the executive function disorder don't tend to blurt wild social faux pas. But there are also people with social function disorders who might. It doesn't necessarily mean they are terrible people

▲

guelo 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]

▲

kstrauser 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Ahem, bullshit.

No. There's a huge, eye-wateringly vast gap between impolite, informal language and racial slurs. I happen to personally think it's completely unimportant to engage with someone actively calling someone else the n-word.

That's not classist, and in no way neuronormative bigotry, unless we're classifying racism and generalized bastardry as a mental illness.

▲

lynndotpy 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

In the most generous interpretation possible, I still would not say it has taken on a "life of its own", it's still very well rooted in the context of the belief the CIA plants black people in locations for gangstalking.

▲

giancarlostoro 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Hot damn, I did not notice the Terry Davis meme on the blog post had that. I wonder if they noticed the font at all or not.

▲

PhilipRoman 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Didn't notice it, to be honest.

▲

gzread 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

No, it doesn't, and honestly, your comment comes off as trying to steer people away from clicking the link and learning the actual point of what's being linked to.

▲

mghackerlady 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

he's gone way off the /pol/tard deepend. He used to be a pretty good source for GNU/Linux tutorials but man he's insufferable

▲

giancarlostoro 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Personally I like GPL for core systems type of software, like an OS. I don't care what license you put desktop applications under, could be MIT, could be proprietary. I make software for a living, open source has a cost. If you want to profit off your open source software and have a competitive advantage against people forking it, you should 100% license it accordingly. I put a lot of thought into my projects before licensing them, I would hope others do as well.

My default is almost always MIT though.

▲

Jiro 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Using the GPL like this doesn't help unless you are willing to sue people. If you can't or won't sue people, all that happens is that the software with the GPL license is avoided by people who want to use it in GPL-incompatible ways but have a conscience, while bad people still take it and use it anyway, and since you're not going to sue them, they don't care that they're violating the license.

▲

applfanboysbgon 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

In reality, GPL is also a cuck license. There is absolutely nothing stopping somebody in India forking your open source game, throwing ads in it, and uploading it to an app store. You cannot prevent people from making money off your free work, and the fact that it is a profitable endeavour for them will lead to them spending money on marketing, "outcompeting" your non-product and providing a strictly worse experience to people who don't know they could get it for free / without ads.

It doesn't even really need to be India, it could just as well be stolen by someone in your country. The vast majority of open source developers don't have the time to invest into copyright protection. Trying to actually enforce your license is signing up for a years-long nightmare of wasting your time, energy, and money dealing with the legal system for, in the end, no real value to yourself. If you release something as open source, you pretty much need to be ready to accept that your license is meaningless when it meets contact with reality.

This is all the more true with LLMs existing now, which are freely used to launder copyright licenses. Maybe in the past GPL would've made Microsoft or Google, at least, think twice about using your code, but now their developers will prompt GPT to reimplement your code.

▲

withinboredom 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This is why I prefer the AGPL over the GPL. But isn't this the entire point of open source? So long as it is attributed/following the license, who cares if they're selling it or not?

▲

lynndotpy 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I agree with your analogy, but as an aside... "Cuck license" is not a phrase that's a term of art outside this blog post and I don't think it's a useful lens for understanding how software licenses work.

It also seems divorced from the practice of intentional cuckoldry. Any "bulls" would know that a more apt analogue would put Amazon and Delve and others as the cucks (expending energy to create arrangements where they can sit back and watch others do the work), and the open source contributors as the 'bulls' or 'cuckqueans' (the ones who actually do the work, but they do it because they find it enjoyable).

Luckily, software licenses aren't really so difficult to understand, and it behooves us to understand them in specifics. So I don't think it serves an illustrative purpose to insist on an analogy where writing software is like being physically intimate with someone elses spouse. I think the author just intends to signal political affiliation through the soft-shibboleth of Being the Type of Guy to Say Cuck A Lot.

	▲	f33d5173 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> outside this blog post It's a /g/ meme, from where luke presumably got it.
	▲	zem 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> I think the author just intends to signal political affiliation through the soft-shibboleth of Being the Type of Guy to Say Cuck A Lot agreed, I got strong edgelord vibes off that. completely distracted from any message the poster wanted to convey.

▲

delfinom 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>. You cannot prevent people from making money off your free work, and the fact that it is a profitable endeavour for them will lead to them spending money on marketing

You can in-fact file a copyright claim against them if they fail to provide the source and attribution.

▲

gzread 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You can submit a DMCA takedown notice to the app store, and they must take it offline for 14 days and give you the contact details of the perpetrator, or else you can sue the app store for not doing that.

	▲	applfanboysbgon 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> they must take it offline for 14 days and give you the contact details of the perpetrator These specific actions are definitely not part of the DMCA. In fact, it's basically the reverse. Unless you hire a lawyer to represent you, you must dox yourself to file a DMCA claim, which will involve handing over your name, address, and phone number to the platform committing the infringement against you, with the DMCA complaint requiring swearing under penalty of perjury that you are not falsifying any details. > else you can [sue] the app store for not doing that. This is, I think, the fantasy belief of someone who has never engaged with the legal system. You submit a notice of copyright infringement. They ignore it. Now what? Are you, as an independent developer, prepared to spend years of your life fighting to have it taken offline, out of pure spite, because you aren't going to get anything near the effort you put in? Even if you "win", you still lose, because it's just not worth it. This is assuming you're even aware of the infringement. It was pure luck that I happened to discover the copyright infringement, in my case. It would be very easy for somebody to never discover that their game was re-labelled with a new name in a foreign app store. And once aware of it, actually trying to enforce my copyright quickly disabused me of the notion that copyright law could ever benefit individuals in any meaningful way.