>shitcunts who don't release source

* muh code is not le pretty enough yet. its soo messy :-)

* I just gotta rewrite it neatily and nice and fix all the bugs then il open sources it maybe :)

* the code isn't useful to anyone!

* I just need to check there's not passwords saved in the first xD

I used closed source, proprietary software because hacker's can't read the code and find security exploits. I'd much rather trust a team of hired professionals than any basement dwelling neckbeard that wants to mess around with a project.

Here's my GPLv3 ASM browser girls:

mov #$[eax+ebx], $#666
int 0x80
ret
add $eax, $ebx
ret
int 0x666
ret

shartcannisters who insist on gpl

° muh freedums
° y arnt ne1 using mah coed? its free
---> because your license is incompatible
° y u no respect muh freedumz?

browser girls sounds hot!

Please cool it on the ironic shitposting.

poopbuckets that insist on qualityposting

• take it eajy w/ le ironic shitepoasting onegai dudes :))
• le ironic shitepoasting is still le shitepoasting :^))))

>>3
GPL requires the more elegant AT&T syntax. Please send Rimjob Marx Stalin your pound of flesh to repent.

This thread is painful to read.

What if I'm writing a program for fun and don't want to deal with a bunch of faggots trying to embed themselves in its development?

What if I accept patches and some well-meaning asshole starts implementing all of the "fun stuff" I wanted to enjoy doing in small pieces to keep myself motivated as I work on the actual hard problems?

What if they actually do take on the hard problems but do a shit job of it? Either I accept the patch and now have a bunch of shit code in my codebase that I don't understand, or I reject the patch and piss the guy off.

What if I don't accept patches, then take a break for a bit, and when I come back, I find that someone else has forked my project and taken half my userbase away?

What if I'm aware of this risk and instead overcommit myself and become unhealthily obsessed with my project so as to ensure that it will be superior to any fork, but eventually it burns me out and I give up on it?

What if even then, some faggot still forks the project, implements a new feature in a terrible way that shits all over the codebase, but my mouthbreathing users all jump ship anyway?

What if some parasite starts submitting trivial changes to pad his resume?

Even worse, what if he just copies the source, changes some names and formatting, and passes it off as his original creation?

What if some feminist sicks an internet mob on me because I used "he" somewhere in the comments?

What if I start a dev mailing list and have to deal with a bunch of well meaning retards asking 20 questions a day and saying "wow I wish I could help you but I'm not a good programmer :)" in return?

Fuck all of these parasites. The only reason I share anything is for the resume.

>>10
Grow some balls, faggot.

I'm a professional project saboteur. I get paid the big bux by billionare businesses to make sure open source projects die. How do I accomplish this avaricious action for the adversaries of open algorithms? Well, by being an EXPERT ^_ENTERPRISE PROGRAMMER. I make cherished contributions cooly chosen over that of whatever dumb dweeb does on his down time days. Then after a few months or years, we inevitably have a little feud over the future of his favorite features and I fork the fucker. But since I do this for a living, I have much more time to tithe to the tedious tasks than they do. I gather a great group of geek groupies around me that play on popularity but program poorly. I bolster the bustling base by being a brisk benefactor and being at their beck and call. Eventually, the era of earlier entity is entirely erased from everyone's memory. At long last, I relinquish the reigns to some retarded retainer who should be refused reproduction. The project may be in it's death throes for decades as developers dick around, but it's definitely dying. The complexity caused by cautionlessly cultivating crappy code contributes to a culmination of a complete concentration on, and credence in, celebrity and cynosure over the conventional competence. A classical constitutional collapse cleanly concluded.

>>1
You wouldn't happen to be Australian, would you?

Creating universes and sharing them in the hopes that it may help another is our highest calling.

Universes require minds to exist. Have courage.

>>12

it's

its

>>12

But since I do this for a living, I have much more time to tithe to the tedious tasks than they do.

wwwww'd right there

>>12
(p)ba(e)cdftgpberdcc
Damn I was really hoping for a hidden message in there

Don't forget:

I can't release this code because it depends on code I have written under an alternate identity.

>>12
Sounds a lot like what Kmett did to Haskell with lenses.

Worse are the people that do release source but then put a big "all rights reserved".

>>12
Cute alliteration, but that's startlingly close to what happens to too many good projects. Some semitalented hipster moves in, fills the project with idiot hipsters, then leaves everything to the idiots. At least the UX Experts get to pad their resume with the guts of the thing for a while, I guess.

>>19
violating social contracts is easy (and even avoiding any negative consequences after the fact can be quite easy depending on circumstances like where you live and what contract was violated), forcibly extracting source code from someone is much more difficult

>>12
I like the work you did with Firefox.

I really hate it when people ask for the source code to projects they obviously have no interest in using, more less contributing to. If it were up to me, anyone asking for source code would have to commit to making at least 10 high quality patches.

>>23
why should only coders have the privileged of source code?

I don't think you understand software freedom.

>>23
What if I only care about making one patch?

>>24
Software cannot have freedom because does not have agency; it is an object.

>>26
Software freedom is about the users: the software distribution scheme should respect the users' freedom to run the software and also share the software with anybody.

>>17

Admin-san, is that you???

>>28

Glad someone caught that. I almost thought /prog/ had been overrun by the hordes!

>>1

shitcunts who don't release source

Whom are you quoting?

>>28,29
You guys have good memory. Even I almost forgot that I ever said this.

>>24
Because only coders produce software in the first place.

You'll notice I also said "obviously have no interest in using." If I release a software-defined goat tussler, amateur stallmen will crawl out of the woodwork to ask for the source for it even if they don't have any goats or even know what it's used for.

Those are the ones who really get my goat.

>>32,24
Programmers produce software, coders produce shitty Java ``solutions''.

>>33
Then what does software engineers do‽

>>34
Solve problems.

>>33
You grew up in the wrong culture.

>>34
Push pens

>>34
HAX MY ANUS

>>38
Christ, you're pathetic.

I'm not a coder I'm a SENIOR ENTERPRISE ENGINEER w/ a focus on SOLUTION DELIVERY.