Fuck the GPL

So I was clicking around on random issues in the ffmpeg bug tracker, and I come across this little gem.

argon, if you want I can simply forward this to our lawyers and they’ll suck the
life out of you (and all your money with it). Keep your cool, please.

You know what, GPL faggots? Fuck you forever. You’re just as bad as the sue-happy proprietary software owners/patent owners you claim to hate so much. The entire point of open source is that anyone should be able to do whatever they want with it. You’re trying to keep the cake and eat it too; either you let the code go and let other people use it freely, or you keep it under locks and sue the fuck out of anyone using it in ways you don’t like. There is no middle ground, and it’s pretty clear which side of the fence you’re on.

The GPL isn’t a “free software” license in any way whatsoever because of its ridiculous restrictions. People who use it are the kind of faggots that are still attached to the “I made it so I should be able to control what happens to it until 90 years after my death” school of intellectual property management, which is about as far from any definition of “free” as you can get. Stop pretending you’re different from the HURR YOU ARE MISUSING OUR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, SUE SUE SUE companies like Adobe and Microsoft.

tl;dr: fuck copyright forever

edit: disclaimer: I have not ever used the kmplayer and from what I read about it on the cccp wiki it is a useless piece of shit anyway


edit edit edit:

  • number of projects in the ffmpeg hall of shame: lots
  • number of ffmpeg license violators actually sued: 0
  • number of ffmpeg license violators that are actually likely to ever get sued: 0
  • number of companies that give a shit about the gpl: 0

edit edit edit edit: the gpl has actually been tried in court a total of like three times ever in all the time it has existed and those cases were limited to a total of two countries, namely the US and Germany, so don’t go off thinking that it is a well established or even internally consistent legal document or anything

Comments (35)

  1. triton wrote:

    Let me add this: Fuck the GPL

    Sunday, August 9, 2009 at 12:45 #
  2. lol

    Sunday, August 9, 2009 at 13:24 #
  3. wat wrote:

    GPL is fags. what’s new?

    seriously, if you wanted to strictly steer clear of any GPL’d or GPL-violating code in a complex extensible environment, like, I dunno, A MEDIA PLAYER or something, you’d pretty much be stuck with writing all shit from scratch.

    GPL is cancerous, and so are its proponents.

    Monday, August 10, 2009 at 03:40 #
  4. wat wrote:

    PS: I’ll sue!

    Monday, August 10, 2009 at 03:40 #
  5. Random Douchebag wrote:

    The thing about the GPL is that it was supposed to prevent freeloading. Besides, it’s not really hard to adhere to: provide source code + license text*, and there you go.

    *Just linking to a webpage would be valid too. What is so hard?

    Tuesday, August 11, 2009 at 13:08 #
  6. TheFluff wrote:

    if you don’t like freeloaders, how about you make your code proprietary and start asking real money for it

    What is so hard?

    how about “absolutely fucking everything”?

    providing source code isn’t exactly trivial since you have to provide it for everything you ever link to (not to mention that your own code automatically becomes GPL too) or you’re a license violator, and contrary to popular belief the webpage link isn’t technically valid either because you have to personally guarantee that the source code will be available for at least three years (and make this guarantee in writing too, and in lawyery terms that means on dead wood)

    if you don’t do all of this you will get assaulted by a legion of retarded gpl trolls

    Tuesday, August 11, 2009 at 21:27 #
  7. 無名さん(bin+cue) wrote:

    Douchebag: They did that. ffmpeg thinks they ought to include ffmpeg source in their download

    Tuesday, August 11, 2009 at 21:41 #
  8. TheFluff wrote:

    Not to mention that if you link to anything closed-source or even open-source but with a non-GPL-compatible license the entire binary suddenly becomes illegal to distribute.

    Tuesday, August 11, 2009 at 21:43 #
  9. emptyeighty wrote:

    The real problem of the GPL is that people who want to code proprietary are teased with source code that is potentially interesting for their project, which they are unable to use because of the GPL’s terms.

    Saturday, August 15, 2009 at 01:20 #
  10. Starks wrote:

    Any license that makes me think too hard is not worth it.

    That’s why I’m a big fan of the WTFPL. The Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License


    Tuesday, August 18, 2009 at 20:59 #
  11. ff wrote:

    Holy shit are you stupid.

    Thursday, August 27, 2009 at 15:47 #
  12. Fruit wrote:

    Now I feel like downloading the program even though I don’t need it at all… KMplayer or MediaCoder.

    Not that I share your rage, but the point about the similar restrictiveness of GPL and normal closed source software is true. Then again, author can spitefuly pick people he will allow to use his shit, it’s perfectly legal and understandable…

    Thursday, August 27, 2009 at 23:53 #
  13. TheFluff wrote:

    the mediacoder guy apparently lives in china, so yeah have fun with that lawsuit sflc

    Thursday, August 27, 2009 at 23:55 #
  14. VS wrote:

    What shit is this?
    Its like trying to sue your friend for eating your cake.

    Friday, August 28, 2009 at 02:08 #
  15. VS wrote:

    Oh wait, I think I know why they’re suing, KMPlayer is more famous and actually has successfully acquired a few business deals.

    Friday, August 28, 2009 at 02:10 #
  16. @ Starks

    So far I’ve released my work under WTFPL as well. Simple, to the point, no headaches. And it’s a real legal license. It’s not some made up BS.

    Monday, September 7, 2009 at 19:37 #
  17. emptyeighty wrote:

    Hint: If you’re the copyright holder, everything you can make up is a real legal license.

    Wednesday, September 9, 2009 at 21:42 #
  18. Bob wrote:

    “The entire point of open source is that anyone should be able to do whatever they want with it.”

    Nobody is forcing you to use the code, but if you want to use it then you must do it on their terms ([L]GPL). Don’t like the rules? Then simply don’t use the code.

    Another freetard fail…

    Monday, September 14, 2009 at 14:47 #
  19. Bub wrote:

    OK Bob, but don’t pretend it’s “free” because obviously it’s not.

    Wednesday, October 28, 2009 at 12:19 #
  20. Nathan McDaniel wrote:

    It is free – not for you, but for whomever you give a copy to – apply recursion as necessary.

    It’s all about fixing what you own. Binary distributions with bugs but no source can not be fixed. It all started when RMS got a printer with a buggy device driver – without source code to the driver the printer was useless. With source code, RMS could fix the driver and make his printer work.

    The goal with GPL is a market in which nobody would ever buy software that didn’t come with source code just like no one would ever buy a car with the hood/bonnet welded shut and the wheels welded on. When/if the market ever gets to that point, the GPL won’t need copyright either.

    Friday, November 27, 2009 at 17:31 #
  21. foobar wrote:

    Ya’ll are fucking faggot idiots…. boohoo, cry me a river. The GPL stole my tacos and my burritos too!

    Thursday, February 4, 2010 at 17:22 #
  22. astrange wrote:

    > number of ffmpeg license violators that are actually likely to ever get sued: 0

    FFmpeg has real legal representation (http://www.softwarefreedom.org/). And it uses the LGPL because they believe in its terms (for instance, the one about disclaiming patent terms is nice). No reason to use a less free license just to help a bunch of ripoff shareware programs that won’t credit you.

    > number of companies that give a shit about the gpl: 0


    Monday, February 15, 2010 at 00:02 #
  23. TheFluff wrote:

    I know about the SFLC. I also know they do absolutely nothing with people who reside outside the US (i.e. all the license violators who actually violate the license to earn money).

    Said license violators are going to use your shit regardless of which license you use, so in the end what you’re doing is making it harder for the license-abiding people who like you to use your stuff. Good job!

    That said the LGPL isn’t quite as bad as the GPL, but it doesn’t really matter because for all practical applications of ffmpeg you also need swscale, which is GPL, so in the end you’re all literally Hitler anyway.

    Monday, February 15, 2010 at 00:09 #
  24. Ivan P. Friely wrote:

    Just wait until MPEG-LA sues them or their users for using an unlicensed h.264 codec. Then we will all know freedom #5, the freedom to lose your pants because someone refuses to pay for something.

    Wednesday, February 17, 2010 at 13:33 #
  25. mongo wrote:

    Are you serious? Fuck you then, write your own code. Clearly you are someone that has 0 clue about how to do so.

    Sunday, July 11, 2010 at 02:52 #
  26. TheFluff wrote:

    I sorta lolled

    Sunday, July 11, 2010 at 09:03 #
  27. pont wrote:

    Have you even read the GPL??? I have a hard time emagine that because you talk a lot of shit…

    Sunday, July 18, 2010 at 20:45 #
  28. Does It Matter wrote:

    Great way of making a fool of yourself in public.

    Wednesday, September 8, 2010 at 19:11 #
  29. TotallyAgree wrote:

    I’m so in agreement with you. On the same coin, their “Diego” is just like the guy above – a total hot-air douche. That duckhole thought the GPL required anyone who made something use fFmPeG also ship FfMPeg’s source with theirs. No, no links, no nothing. Was a total fag.

    Even though – even in the GPL itself, it says that they can fucking offer snail mail if they so choose – just so long as it is available.

    Fuck GPL. I’ll print up the fFMPEg source on 3×5 notecards. Send me a letter if you want me to mail it to you.

    Their sanctimonious bullshit is throttling the real growth that could be had by the quagmire of garbage in that holier-than-thou licensing scheme that goes all Nazi in enforcing “free”.

    If it’s free, it’s free – FUCK ALL how you use it, bitches – its FREE. Not “it’s only free if you do it this way.”

    I can’t wait till the patent holders rip your asses apart for the MPEGLA infringement, too. Sure, you don’t got money, but you can bet you won’t ever own FFMPEG anymore, either – once you wake the beast enough by patent infringement.

    Yeah, fuck all anyone who doesn’t go zealot free according to your bitch rules – but flaunt it anywhere else, right?

    This post is so dead on to the truth.

    If the shit is free, don’t fucking tell me how I can use it. Anything other than that – is the very definition of NOT free – it’s controlling.

    Gimme something like MIT – “hey, it’s a license, do what the fuck you want. Shit is free.”

    Tuesday, September 21, 2010 at 03:38 #
  30. jo wrote:

    KMPlayer authors deserve it.

    Wednesday, November 17, 2010 at 13:33 #
  31. TJ wrote:

    Yeah, this is old, but I just wanted to get in a quick fuck the GNUTards.

    BSD licenses ONLY for my stuff. If you want to use my shit to make money, do it. Enjoy.

    Wednesday, July 18, 2012 at 01:25 #
  32. Ricardo Santos wrote:

    I know that this is old, but:

    I see nothing wrong with a person wanting others that use their code to open their code as well. Whoever writes the code places it on whatever license they like.

    However I do have an issue over deceit. The GPL is not free. Not as in beer (as technically you can charge) and certainly not as in freedom.

    Nor does it scraps freeloading. It just changes the freeloader from being a programmer to being a marketer. In fact it blatantly encourages freeloading.

    Who ever writes the software is not the person that gets a monetary gain. But if you take a lot of GPL code. Mixed with NON GPL art and some other non GPL programs, you can make a distribution.

    You can also use it internally and make a web empire out of the backs of willing slaves.

    Finally the GPL is written on legalese. AKA Written in a way not easily understood by the average person. And with deceitful clauses (like the Freedom Bullshit one). Is a communist manifesto more than a license.

    In resume GPL does not eliminate free loading nor is about freedom. It definitely needs rewording on common language instead of legalese. Without lies. In a language that a person can actually understand what they are getting into. As it stands, is a paper on deceit.

    Tuesday, November 20, 2012 at 09:33 #
  33. Opensource thrives when the users contribute back to the project in some way (patches, docs, cash) and the systems will fail to produce quality works when everyone is freeloading and not contributing.

    Saturday, July 13, 2013 at 01:13 #
  34. fuckthegpl wrote:

    GPL is for fucking faggots. Period.

    Monday, September 23, 2013 at 10:11 #
  35. MitLicenseRules wrote:

    The best open-source license is MIT :)
    With MIT, there are no restrictions. Plus, you are not responsible if your code doesn’t work. There’s a little disclaimer there. So not only that you don’t have to worry about lawyers sucking the life out of you and whatnot, you also don’t have to listen to people saying “Hey your code dozent werk fixitnowwwww!!!11″. You are completely free as well as they are.
    And if you’re a real programmer, you can simply with full right fix the bugs yourself after you fork the software.

    And yes, GPL has obligations while proprietary software has restrictions. Both have lawyers that want you to be in jail like son of a SOPAs. MIT doesn’t. MIT is being nice and respectful like a brother and will never hurt you :3

    There’s a sweet operating system licensed with MIT license and it’s called Haiku OS. It’s still in alpha stage, but as soon as it gets fully released, bye bye cancer Linux and your GPL lawyers and jailers and jail rapists and you evil you nasty you you you you japoisd fjpoawfpaujovw89a93840tat

    Saturday, October 25, 2014 at 22:13 #