Show us your desktop!

They should just make a browser add on that's a word filter so that the burden is on the person scared of the big evil words, rather than the websites hosting them.
 
We can disable the filter? I thought we lost that feature when we upgraded.
 
You can disable it, but it's still super funny about everything when you do.
 
I remember when I set a filter on BitBuilt that changed "the" to "cum dumpster."
We should do that here.
 
Nah, I don't need to incapacitate my machine to compile its OS.
UPDATE: I am currently incapacitating my machine to compile a fork of BSD that includes Linux drivers for my graphics adapter or something
 
UPDATE: I am currently incapacitating my machine to compile a fork of BSD that includes Linux drivers for my graphics adapter or something
Does it count as BSD if it's been poisoned with the GNU license?
 
It's already poisoned with proprietary software so why the *Can'tSayThisOnTV* not?
 
I'm no expert on OS structure yet, but I don't think that I compiled the whole kernel, only certain parts of the branch that included the i915 drivers from Linux.
 
>poisoned with the GNU license

capitalist plz get out
haha, i used the term because of its recursive nature.

Granted, there have been times I've avoided linking a GNU library into a project so as to retain choice of whether or not to open-source.
 
GNU licenses only require that the host code is licensed with a GNU compatible license. As long as the BSD license has had the advertising clause removed, it's still GNU.
 
Also in addition, Why wouldn't you want to license your code with a GNU license? All it specifies is that if the software is sold, it needs to be distributed with the source, and the source should be allowed to be modified. You can still charge for the software, and you can still get revenue from it.

Honestly the only issue that you can have is that someone smarter than you will fork the code and add more features, but even then, by license they are legally required to publish it under GNU, so you can backport to your version. There really isn't any negatives to it.
 
Which is then GNU rather than BSD.
Also in addition, Why wouldn't you want to license your code with a GNU license? All it specifies is that if the software is sold, it needs to be distributed with the source, and the source should be allowed to be modified. You can still charge for the software, and you can still get revenue from it.

Honestly the only issue that you can have is that someone smarter than you will fork the code and add more features, but even then, by license they are legally required to publish it under GNU, so you can backport to your version. There really isn't any negatives to it.
While I would have the capability of selling my work with the GNU license, it would also be out there for people to just take. Look at CentOS, for example. RedHat sells a Linux distribution, and because they're forced to open-source all their stuff, you've got CentOS come out which is a Red Hat you don't have to pay for.

And then there's also the issue that if my software had a GNU license, then anything that used it would also be IGNOREen to that license, so even if people did want to pay to me for it, they'd be stuck with their own software being forced into a GNU license.

I'm not against the concept of opening my source code up, but if I do it, it'll be because I want to and it'll be on my terms.
 
v7Mhb.png


Suck on that, MicroShaft

Now if only ASUS would make drivers for my touchpad that don't rely on the (more) botnet OS
Not like they worked well anyway
 
Back
Top