GPL for stuff that matters, MIT for stuff I don't care about.

>>867 A man of taste, I see.

>>867 Why MIT instead of public domain?

wtfpl or public domain. anything else is hypocrisy.

>>871 Public domain is not a thing in some countries.

>>873 Permissive Use and Public Domain allow corporations to exploit your work without attribution or anything to compel them to do likewise. Copyleft is a necessity, not because it's ideal (public domain would be ideal in a world where copyright law wasn't so broken) but because the system is the way it is we much "infect" it until there's a legal obligation to release everything. GPL is great but the AGPL patches a pretty significant loophole with regards to hosted content. As more services shift to "web apps", the AGPL has become a critical underused tool to force code disclosures.

Is there a license that is close to BSD with the differences that commercial companies are not allowed to use the code? GPL is way to intrusive for my purpose and I don't like Stallman how he has to constantly shove his freetardism down through my throat.

>>875 But you could dual-license the code as both public domain and GPL. That way if lawyers in a corporation get uneasy about using public domain, you can tell them that for the small price of 1000USD you are willing to sell them a commercial license, if GPL is too restrictive for them.

>>891 >Is there a license that is close to BSD with the differences that commercial companies are not allowed to use the code? That would not be a Free as in Freedom license though. (((Ken Silverman))) did exactly that with the Build Engine and now any source port that's based on his code cannot be included in any Free package repository. Don't be a kike, anon. Either be a cuck and give your word away with no strings attached, or be a chad and demand that those who make you of the freedom you give them also pass on that same freedom on to others. >>894 As I said, it's only for code that I don't care about. Any code you write and put out is proprietary by default, so you have to explicitly give it a license. When it comes to some hacked together shell script of Vim plugin I don't see any commercial value in it, so I might as well give it the most cucked license. A year from now I might not even be using the code anymore, but someone else might find it useful, so I want as few strings attached. > That way if lawyers in a corporation get uneasy about using public domain, you can tell them that for the small price of 1000USD you are willing to sell them a commercial license, if GPL is too restrictive for them. But if I do see value in it, why even have a dual license as public domain? That's the sort of thing that should be exclusively GPL with maybe an option to sell an exception for six gorillion sheckels.

>>900 But that was my original point: If you don't see value in it, then why would you care if some people are living in countries where public domain is not accepted? The code isn't important anyway. Besides, I've never heard of a country that wouldn't recognize public domain. I only suggested dual-licensing because you do seem to care about the code enough to license it and to worry about people not being able to use it in theoretical shit countries.

>>900 > (((Ken Silverman))) did exactly that with the Build Engine and now any source port that's based on his code cannot be included in any Free package repository. Don't be a kike, anon. >Supporting capitalistic software firms Sounds like a kulak talk to me if you ask me, comrade. >Either be a cuck and give your word away with no strings attached, or be a chad and demand that those who make you of the freedom you give them also pass on that same freedom on to others. And I am not going to use cuck licenses for a reason, which makes me wonder why BSD/MIT license even exist might as well use CC0/PD license instead. The GPL v2+ is for me too strict as it also demands that the program uses only libraries that are also GPL compatible, also it is made by richard stallman a toejam eating guy which is a negative because he wants the software developer that uses his license follow also stallmanism philosophy and other freetardism, probably his brain got turned into a mush with all the shitty lisp code he wrote over the decades instead of using something more sane.

>>876 >Permissive Use and Public Domain allow corporations to exploit your work without attribution So what? If it's public domain they can't claim ownership and neither do you get full owner ship. It's public and up to the public to use it. It's better to get rid of ownership completely instead of hold on to it after you've already release the source code for free into the internet. What happens when people hold on compulsively to their software ends up creating an environment where no one can contribute freely to it in their own way. Instead, you have to contribute to the "official repo" and open a pull request or go through some bullshit mail list. Anytime there is a major fork of a repo it's often not to add functionality, but to be a bullshit counter statement full of retarded politics. copyleft has a huge problem with CoC, ToS, SAAS and fucking copyright. All shit that is hypocritical to the very nature of it being "free as in freedom". You instead have to contribute the way they want you to, or gtfo. And you end up getting huge Companies backing projects anyway, infact. copyleft is so infected with businesses exploiting free labor that it's fucking disgusting. With public domain atleast you don't get into a state where you get to see a project you once loved and contributed to torn apart by monitization and driven through with a stake as they add more and more corporate shit to the project like CoC... etc. A public domain project just gets taken and used as it was supposed to be, that's it. fuck all that other bullshit. It's retarded and everyone who uses and vouches for it are hypocrites.>>876

>>1124 Public domain is great. I mean it has no legal meaning in various countries but when people try to do things like set up a CoC for a project, they can't! BTFO by freedom!

>>1124 What are you talking about? With GPL you can at any point fork off a project and do your own thing, for whatever reason, be it political or technical or because it's thursday. And you don't need to contribute anything back if you don't want to. The difference between copyleft and cuck licenses is that with a cuck license anyone can use your work to make non-free software out of it.

>>1118 >hurr durr gnu bad Think of an actual argument before posting.

I use AGPL >>876 or >>873 >>875 >>1125 CC0 is the answer.

>>875 Both the CC0 and Unlicense have fallbacks for countries that don't recognize the public domain. Otherwise, use 0-clause BSD or the WTFPL with a no-warranty clause.

AGPL or GPL3 for shit I care about. Unlicense for shit I don't care about

>>865 >>muh licensing GAY

Is there an easy to way to reset the root password on an OpenBSD installation? I forgot mine and I don't want to reinstall everything.

>>1941 If you have a sudoer account you should be able to run passwd for root or su to change your user to theirs and then alter it.

>>1962 Problem is I have it set up to boot to XCFE desktop and when it goes through the booting process there is no way to intercept it like I was reading. I'm launching it from a librebooted machine if that helps.

>>1972 If you need to get a terminal without logging in, see if ctrl+alt+F2 does anything. On Linux that will open a separate session; maybe it works on BSD, too. Can't you just log in as a different sudoer? Or is the only account you have root? If so, you're screwed, and this is very bad practice for a number of reasons.