Where do you stand on Licensing? (Flame advisory in effect)



  • As I posted recently, I contemplated the need for a good old-fashioned provocative thread to help keep things on-topic elsewhere.  I also said that the posts appeared to be on-topic anyway, but it got me thinking: why all the lengthy expositions whenever the GPL comes up?

    The answer to me seemed to be that it's such an important topic.  Every Tom, Dick, and Harriette would like to air his or her opinion on the matter, and by God, I want to air my opinion, too.  Maybe it will give me a chance to learn a little, especially if someone can give clarification on the finer points, and maybe even come to greater understanding by the mere act of writing out my thoughts, so here goes:

    My beef with the GPL: I think the BSD license is freer, and I prefer that license.

    The last time I tried to understand the GPL, it seemed to basically say that if I extend a piece of GPL'd code, I have certain obligations to make source code available, give credit to the author, and not only be subject to the terms of the GPL, but to further subject anyone else who wants to use my intellectual property to the same terms.

    If, on the other hand, I extend a piece of BSD licensed code, the only restriction put on me is to give credit where credit is due.  I don't have to make source code available.  I have the freedom to not distribute my own intellectual property, or even the intellectual property that served as my foundation.  All I have to do is give a "shout out" to the people who made my work possible.

    Further, anyone else can use my creation with neither I nor they being subject to terms that could become onerous should that creation become popular.  That's freedom to me.  That's the freedom to do what I want with the code, so long as I credit the author, and to subject or not subject the users of my creation to whatever terms I want, so long as they give me credit, too.

    And maybe that's where I could conclude that I don't actually have a problem with the GPL.  After all, my opinion is, "if you don't like it, don't use it".  If I apply that rule to my own opinion, the beef disappears.  I don't like it, I won't use it.  Simple as that.  I won't tell you not to use the GPL, and you can't tell me I have to, because I won't be extending your code to begin with.  The same goes with proprietary code:  If I don't like it, I don't have to use it.

    Well, whether that does anything for the rest of you or not, or if this even makes a lot of sense, I suppose I only care insofar as it pleases me to care.  The issue seems resolved for me personally, but what about you?  Where do you stand on licensing, and why?

    As a final word, thanks once again go to Alex and everyone else out there who occasionally clicks on the banner ads for providing this space and the opportunity to rant, even if someone will probably call me a scumbag because I'm immoral or something.  Them's the breaks, and I have to give credit where credit is due, right?



  • If you wanted to frase it in terms of freedom I guess you would say the gpl is all about the freedom of the person using the software. The belief that the user should have access to the source for any programs they use is the goal behind the GPL. In order for such a system to work one freedom a person can not have is the freedom to take GPLed code and use it in a closed source program.



  • The idea behind the GPL is that it's free only to those who agree to advance the cause of free software.  BTW, there is the LGPL that strikes a middle ground.  With the LGPL, you cannot enhance and sell the library but you can sell software that depends on the library.  I think that's fair.

    GPL software is not designed to be free to you, it's designed to be free to everyone.  With BSD software, there is much less of an impetus to put enhacements back into the codebase, so it matures slower.  With GPL software, it's in your best interests to simply give your enhancements to the parent project and have them maintain it.  With BSD software, it's in your best interests to keep your enhancements private.

    Detractors like to compare GPL software to a virus because it makes anything it touches free.  However, many pieces of commercial software have viral licensing too.  A lot of libraries charge runtime royalties which is the commercial variation of the same theme.



  • @stinch said:

    If you wanted to frase it in terms of freedom I guess you would say the gpl is all about the freedom of the person using the software. The belief that the user should have access to the source for any programs they use is the goal behind the GPL. In order for such a system to work one freedom a person can not have is the freedom to take GPLed code and use it in a closed source program.

    I think I understand what you're saying.  For the user of a GPL'd product, it's like a guarantee that as a user you'll have a copy of the source if you need it.



  • @jsmith said:

    The idea behind the GPL is that it's free only to those who agree to advance the cause of free software.  BTW, there is the LGPL that strikes a middle ground.  With the LGPL, you cannot enhance and sell the library but you can sell software that depends on the library.  I think that's fair.

    I think that's similar to the idea I came across in my conclusion.  It's a contract, and if you want to play, you've got to pay just like everyone else.

    @jsmith said:

    GPL software is not designed to be free to you, it's designed to be free to everyone.  With BSD software, there is much less of an impetus to put enhacements back into the codebase, so it matures slower.  With GPL software, it's in your best interests to simply give your enhancements to the parent project and have them maintain it.  With BSD software, it's in your best interests to keep your enhancements private.

    I think this is interesting.  I've got a weak spot for explanations based on incentives.  In many ways I think this is why the GPL is often characterized as communist(I'm not saying I believe that), since in contrast a BSD license seems like it would be highly compatible with private enterprise - my favorite example is the Regents of Berkeley reference in Microsoft's implementation of ftp(I saw this one myself, so I know it's not a myth).



  • @Oscar L said:

    @stinch said:

    If you wanted to frase it in terms of freedom I guess you would say the gpl is all about the freedom of the person using the software. The belief that the user should have access to the source for any programs they use is the goal behind the GPL. In order for such a system to work one freedom a person can not have is the freedom to take GPLed code and use it in a closed source program.

    I think I understand what you're saying.  For the user of a GPL'd product, it's like a guarantee that as a user you'll have a copy of the source if you need it.



    It is the guarantee that you'll have a copy of the source if you need it; furthermore, you have the right to change it, to distribute it and to distribute the changed version. These are the fundamental liberties of free software; while the GPL and similar licenses protect those liberties by their "viral" nature, other licenses like BSD don't.

    While the GPL doesn't say "you may not make money" (no free software license says that), it's obviously difficult to sell licenses when every licensee is free to distribute the software, too.
    A way to get around this are trademarks; e.g. RedHat Linux is free software, but you cannot simply sell 1:1 copies of their CDs, since they contain trademarked graphics (i.e. the RedHat logo). Some people legaly make clones of RedHat Linux, e.g. CentOS and Whitebox, but they have to do some work to replace the trademarks and after that, for the customer who wants a "certified" platform, it's no longer RedHat.

    Other companies, e.g. Trolltech, make money by dual-licensing: they offer their product (QT) under GPL and a proprietary license. Since this is a library, people who use the GPLed version must make their programs GPLed, too. But QT is also used for proprietary programs, so the creators of those programs need the proprietary version of QT. The drawback of this scenario is that the creator of the dual-licensed software cannot accept donated code from third parties, since that would make those parties co-author of the software and dual-licensing would required their consent. Some free software licenses, e.g. the license of Mozilla (MPL) and the former license of OpenOffice.org before they changed it to LGPL, work around that problem by giving the original donator of those products more rights than the rest of the crowd, i.e. the right to use donated code for proprietary products. This obviously discourages the community to largely help such projects, so most developers on such projects usually are usually paid by the original donator.



  • if you go back and read the GNU manifesto, Stallman specifically states that he is wanting to create code that is free for everyone.  he is wanting to create free software.  The wrong way to create free software is to create a bunch of libraries and some tools and then tell people to go hog wild with it and sell everything they make by using your libraries.  That will just allow other people to use your code to write closed source code.  The correct way is to make a large comprehensive collection and then tell people to use it all they want and do whatever they want.... they just have to add what they create to the store of free software.  since the GNU tools libraries are very good lots of people use them to create stuff for themselves (companies too) and they don't have any qualms giving the source code back so that other people can use it.  if you are interested in keeping your source code private, you'd be better off writing your own libraries that do what the GNU libraries did. 

    I'm extremely capitalistic but I do like the GPL.  The GPL is inteneded to create a set of developer tools and libraries that are nice to use.  if you don't want to be bound by the terms of the GPL then you shouldn't use their software.  Seems fair to me.



  • I'm pretty much with Oscar L here, at least as regards to the majority of code I throw out that isn't for paying clients.  I've released a lot of stuff that is under BSD or compatible licenses, Basically what I'm saying with that is "there you go, if you think you can make squillions with it in a closed source app, go ahead".  I personally have no problem with that, but I'm probably a linux commie or something

    Allowing people to make closed source code is not necessarily a bad thing, and it doesn't mean that they won't contribute back.  Look at the license for Ruby and RubyOnRails - it's essentially BSD but there's a huge community of people contributing code to make it all better.

    On the other hand, I help out on a few GPL and LGPL projects, and have no problems with the licensing terms they use; they are "important" enough that it is a good thing the source is kept open.

    Both forms of license have their place.  As a developer about to release software into the open, it's your duty to understand what licensing terms you're giving stuff out as, and to ensure that it is compatible with any libraries you might use.

    Simon



  • @tufty said:

    I'm pretty much with Oscar L here, at least as regards to the majority of code I throw out that isn't for paying clients.  I've released a lot of stuff that is under BSD or compatible licenses, Basically what I'm saying with that is "there you go, if you think you can make squillions with it in a closed source app, go ahead".


    Well, if there is really a chance that someone could make squillions from one of my GPLed programs if only it was BSD, he can always ask me for an exemption. I'm bribable.



  • With BSD software, there is much less of an impetus to put enhacements back into the codebase, so it matures slower.

    I see no evidence for this in practice.

    The BSD license is fundamentally honest; the GPL is fundamentally dishonest.  The BSD license ensures freedom.  The GPL denies it.

     



  • the way I see it, BSDL means "take my code, and do whatever you want with it", so using it means giving all your effort away for the world to use.
    GPL means the same, except that if you use/change it AND distribute it, you have to use the same license, so you put your work into an expanding base of GPL'd code.
    LGPL means using it is allowed in any case, but if you change it, you have to release the changes back under the LGPL
    @DrPizza said:

    The BSD license is fundamentally honest; the GPL is fundamentally dishonest.  The BSD license ensures freedom.  The GPL denies it.

     

    explain, I don't see how this has to do with honesty, just philanthropy



  • @DrPizza said:

    With BSD software, there is much less of an impetus to put enhacements back into the codebase, so it matures slower.

    I see no evidence for this in practice.


    Success of Linux (also in terms of corporarte support) vs. success of *BSD.


    The BSD license is fundamentally honest; the GPL is fundamentally dishonest.  The BSD license ensures freedom.  The GPL denies it.



    The only freedom the GPL denies is the freedom to take away the freedom from others.


  • @DrPizza said:

    The BSD license is fundamentally honest; the GPL is fundamentally dishonest.  The BSD license ensures freedom.  The GPL denies it.


    Quite the opposite. While the BSD licence does not deny freedom, it does not ensure it. If you write a program that is pretty good, but a software house take it, expand it, spend more time and money than you have on it and make a better product that they call their own, they can do if you used the BSD licence.

    The point about the GPL is that it ensures that the users of your software are given the same freedoms as were given to you.

    On the thorny issue of communism, don't be fooled. GPL really IS communism, in it's purest and original meaning. Everything is available to all, should they want it. It ensures equal rights to all things to all members. However, what most westerners think of when the dreaded C word is mentioned is Marxism, a particularly dangerous and nasty political regime. They are not the same.



  • @ammoQ said:

    @tufty said:
    I'm pretty much with Oscar L here, at least as regards to the majority of code I throw out that isn't for paying clients.  I've released a lot of stuff that is under BSD or compatible licenses, Basically what I'm saying with that is "there you go, if you think you can make squillions with it in a closed source app, go ahead".


    Well, if there is really a chance that someone could make squillions from one of my GPLed programs if only it was BSD, he can always ask me for an exemption. I'm bribable.


    you can make money off GPL software.  nowhere does it say you can't make money.  However it will just be hard because your customers could get the software for free, so you have to offer something good with it  (like a free cookie).


    There's nothing dishonest about the GPL.  It is intended to fulfil a role which it does very well.  the BSD is intended to fulfiul a different role.  if you don't like the GPL don't use GNU source or anything else protected under it.



  • @tufty said:

    Allowing people to make closed source code is not necessarily a bad thing, and it doesn't mean that they won't contribute back.  Look at the license for Ruby and RubyOnRails - it's essentially BSD but there's a huge community of people contributing code to make it all better.

    It's interesting to hear about an example like that.  I don't know a whole lot about Ruby, but it appears to be evolving very quickly.  If that's true, I would like to know why this seems to run counter to what jsmith said earlier:

    @jsmith said:

    With BSD software, there is much less of an impetus to put enhacements back into the codebase, so it matures slower.

    Does anyone have any comments on whether or not Ruby(OnRails) would qualify as a fast growing BSD-licensed product, and why this might be?



  • @ammoQ said:

    @Oscar L said:

    @stinch said:

    If you wanted to frase it in terms of freedom I guess you would say the gpl is all about the freedom of the person using the software. The belief that the user should have access to the source for any programs they use is the goal behind the GPL. In order for such a system to work one freedom a person can not have is the freedom to take GPLed code and use it in a closed source program.

    I think I understand what you're saying.  For the user of a GPL'd product, it's like a guarantee that as a user you'll have a copy of the source if you need it.



    It is the guarantee that you'll have a copy of the source if you need it; furthermore, you have the right to change it, to distribute it and to distribute the changed version. These are the fundamental liberties of free software; while the GPL and similar licenses protect those liberties by their "viral" nature, other licenses like BSD don't.
    ...
    Some free software licenses, e.g. the license of Mozilla (MPL) and the former license of OpenOffice.org before they changed it to LGPL, work around that problem by giving the original donator of those products more rights than the rest of the crowd, i.e. the right to use donated code for proprietary products. This obviously discourages the community to largely help such projects, so most developers on such projects usually are usually paid by the original donator.

    That's where I could see the GPL as a useful license to me as the owner of a project.  By guaranteeing access to the source code, I could assure downstream developers that it's safe to make contributions to my project.  Basically, I won't take their work and steal it for myself.



  • @tster said:

    if you don't want to be bound by the terms of the GPL then you shouldn't use their software.  Seems fair to me.

    That's where I tend to be pragmatic.  I don't think I see a problem with using GPL'd products, in that the GPL doesn't swallow up the graphics I create using the gimp.  But as far as using someone else's source code, I definitely recognize the author's right to release the code under whatever license he/she sees fit.



  • @DrPizza said:

    With BSD software, there is much less of an impetus to put enhacements back into the codebase, so it matures slower.

    I see no evidence for this in practice.

    The BSD license is fundamentally honest; the GPL is fundamentally dishonest.  The BSD license ensures freedom.  The GPL denies it.



    That's simply silly. There is nothing fundamentally dishonest about the GPL. It is a licensing agreement between someone a provider and a consumer of software. That's all. If you don't like its terms, you're not forced to agree to it.  If you want to take someone else's work and extend it for a client project, fine. Just give the client the source. 

    Hell, you don't even need to pass on your source modifications if they're for your internal use only. The only "restriction" the GPL is imposing on you is not closing the source once it's been opened, which is, duh, sort of the whole point.

    As to the relative growth in the Linux community as compared to the BSD community: there are a lot of reasons for that, not the least of which was the pall over the *NIX community cast by the AT&T lawsuit. A bit more on that here: http://www.freebsddiary.org/linux.php.


  • @craiga said:

    @DrPizza said:
    The BSD license is fundamentally honest; the GPL is fundamentally dishonest.  The BSD license ensures freedom.  The GPL denies it.


    Quite the opposite. While the BSD licence does not deny freedom, it does not ensure it. If you write a program that is pretty good, but a software house take it, expand it, spend more time and money than you have on it and make a better product that they call their own, they can do if you used the BSD licence.

    That's where I might not have a problem.  If someone takes some dinky module I wrote and turns it into something that dominates an emerging market, my name is on every copy - at least it should be - and I wouldn't mind getting name recognition for it.



  • @tster said:

    @ammoQ said:
    @tufty said:
    I'm pretty much with Oscar L here, at least as regards to the majority of code I throw out that isn't for paying clients.  I've released a lot of stuff that is under BSD or compatible licenses, Basically what I'm saying with that is "there you go, if you think you can make squillions with it in a closed source app, go ahead".


    Well, if there is really a chance that someone could make squillions from one of my GPLed programs if only it was BSD, he can always ask me for an exemption. I'm bribable.


    you can make money off GPL software.  nowhere does it say you can't make money.  However it will just be hard because your customers could get the software for free, so you have to offer something good with it  (like a free cookie).


    There's nothing dishonest about the GPL.  It is intended to fulfil a role which it does very well.  the BSD is intended to fulfiul a different role.  if you don't like the GPL don't use GNU source or anything else protected under it.

    Another thing that is interesting to me about free software is the way in which it effectively raises the bar by forcing private companies to innovate in more interesting ways in order to make money.  Take gcc for instance.  If I want to sell compilers, I have to write a better compiler than gcc.

    The difference I see is that if I'm Intel, and I want to sell my C compiler, I've got to write it from scratch if I want to keep the source to myself.  If it were BSD licensed, I could have started with the source for bsdcc and used my resources to improve on bsdcc rather than reinventing that wheel.

    It seems to boil down to the method you use to make money off a product.  If I improve gcc, my coding benefits everyone equally, so whenever I improve gcc, I'd better have a plan for making money on something other than the merits of my coding prowess.  If I add new feature x to bsdcc, I can profit directly from the effort I invested in adding x.



  • @ammoQ said:

    @DrPizza said:

    With BSD software, there is much less of an impetus to put enhacements back into the codebase, so it matures slower.

    I see no evidence for this in practice.
    Success of Linux (also in terms of corporarte support) vs. success of *BSD.

    Success of linux vs success of bsd-based code on the desktop?  I think you'll find Apple win on that one :)  Server side, probably linux wins out.  Couldn't say why, to be honest.

    Success of linux vs success of *BSD in terms of stability and security?  *BSD wins (check secunia for details WRT security, and google for tales of woe along the lines of "2.6.x hosed my machine", although both linux and *BSD soundly thrash Windows on both counts)

    About the only benefit I can see WRT Linux vs *BSD is that, in a workstation environment, you're likely to have better support for funky peripherals.  That, of course, comes with the downside of "living on the edge".  There's a big difference between Linux and *BSD release cycles, and the development approach taken between the "two worlds".

    Of course, this is neither a flame on Linux, nor anything to do with the licenses themselves.

    Sure, Linux is a "poster boy" for the GPL, although, for an arguably vastly more important product I'd call on gcc.  It's a lot less "sexy" of course.

    I would personally argue that the license has little or nothing to do with either the amount of enhancements that get put back into a project, or the speed of its uptake; the primary driver is whether people feel the software is useful and worthwhile.

    Simon




  • Oscar's got it in the last post.  what software vendors need to realize is that the infrastructure (meaning operating systems and programming languages/compilers) are no longer a way to make money.  to make money in software you have to be more inovative.  Of course, Microsoft would beg to differ on this, and their doing a pretty good job of making money on operating systems.



  • @tster said:

    Oscar's got it in the last post.  what software vendors need to realize is that the infrastructure (meaning operating systems and programming languages/compilers) are no longer a way to make money.  to make money in software you have to be more inovative.


    I disagree with that. Infrastructure is no longer a safe bet to make money, but as long as a company makes much better products than the free competition, it still has it's chances. For example, GCC is free, but if intel's compiler creates faster code, some people will pay for it.



  • @tufty said:


    Success of linux vs success of bsd-based code on the desktop?  I think you'll find Apple win on that one :) 



    But BSD gains nothing at all from that. That's why GPL fans think that BSD-style licenses are too liberal.



  • @ammoQ said:

    @tufty said:

    Success of linux vs success of bsd-based code on the desktop?  I think you'll find Apple win on that one :) 



    But BSD gains nothing at all from that. That's why GPL fans think that BSD-style licenses are too liberal.

    I think BSD may gain indirectly.  When a lot of people see how amazing the Apple UI is, and then hear that the O/S is based on BSD, they'll probably connect the two whether or not it's actually true.  You could probably argue it either way, but the bottom line is that I would expect many people to now associate BSD-based systems with a good user experience.



  • I don't connect computers (nor any operating system) with a good user experience.  if I had to choose the best, I'm sorry to say but I think Windows probably delivers the best user experience time-in time-out.



  • @Oscar L said:

    @ammoQ said:
    @tufty said:

    Success of linux vs success of bsd-based code on the desktop?  I think you'll find Apple win on that one :) 



    But BSD gains nothing at all from that. That's why GPL fans think that BSD-style licenses are too liberal.

    I think BSD may gain indirectly.  When a lot of people see how amazing the Apple UI is, and then hear that the O/S is based on BSD, they'll probably connect the two whether or not it's actually true.  You could probably argue it either way, but the bottom line is that I would expect many people to now associate BSD-based systems with a good user experience.



    Well, this is a very indirect gain, if it counts at all - the typical Apple user probably doesn't care at all about what's under the hood. On the other hand, if SUSE adds a driver for some piece of hardware to Linux, every other distro can deliver that driver, too. If a patch from RedHat improves real-time scheduling or security, every other distro is free to use that patch, too.
    That's what I call a gain.


  • @tster said:

    I don't connect computers (nor any operating system) with a good user experience.  if I had to choose the best, I'm sorry to say but I think Windows probably delivers the best user experience time-in time-out.


    IMO, all desktop operating systems suck more or less (rather more than less); for some people, Windows probably sucks least, but this might be just a matter of habits.



  • @ammoQ said:

    @tster said:
    I don't connect computers (nor any operating system) with a good user experience.  if I had to choose the best, I'm sorry to say but I think Windows probably delivers the best user experience time-in time-out.


    IMO, all desktop operating systems suck more or less (rather more than less); for some people, Windows probably sucks least, but this might be just a matter of habits.


    that's pretty much what I was trying to say exactly.



  • @tster said:

    @ammoQ said:
    @tster said:
    I don't connect computers (nor any operating system) with a good user experience.  if I had to choose the best, I'm sorry to say but I think Windows probably delivers the best user experience time-in time-out.


    IMO, all desktop operating systems suck more or less (rather more than less); for some people, Windows probably sucks least, but this might be just a matter of habits.


    that's pretty much what I was trying to say exactly.


    Well, at least we might be able to take some comfort in the fact that todays GUI desktops suck much less than the web/ajax-based desktops of the future. They will come, no doubt. The idea is by far too stupid to be ignored.



  • @ammoQ said:

    @tster said:
    @ammoQ said:
    @tster said:
    I don't connect computers (nor any operating system) with a good user experience.  if I had to choose the best, I'm sorry to say but I think Windows probably delivers the best user experience time-in time-out.


    IMO, all desktop operating systems suck more or less (rather more than less); for some people, Windows probably sucks least, but this might be just a matter of habits.


    that's pretty much what I was trying to say exactly.


    Well, at least we might be able to take some comfort in the fact that todays GUI desktops suck much less than the web/ajax-based desktops of the future. They will come, no doubt. The idea is by far too stupid to be ignored.

    I'm so tired of hearing about ajax already.  It's a cleaning product over here, and that's that.  Hey, speaking of something ever so slightly back on topic, if Microsoft's ajax framework is called Atlas, what will the GNU version be called?



  • @Oscar L said:

    @ammoQ said:

    @tster said:
    @ammoQ said:
    @tster said:
    I don't connect computers (nor any operating system) with a good user experience.  if I had to choose the best, I'm sorry to say but I think Windows probably delivers the best user experience time-in time-out.


    IMO, all desktop operating systems suck more or less (rather more than less); for some people, Windows probably sucks least, but this might be just a matter of habits.


    that's pretty much what I was trying to say exactly.


    Well, at least we might be able to take some comfort in the fact that todays GUI desktops suck much less than the web/ajax-based desktops of the future. They will come, no doubt. The idea is by far too stupid to be ignored.

    I'm so tired of hearing about ajax already.  It's a cleaning product over here, and that's that.  Hey, speaking of something ever so slightly back on topic, if Microsoft's ajax framework is called Atlas, what will the GNU version be called?



    knowing GNU it will be called Gajax. 


  • @Oscar L said:

    I'm so tired of hearing about ajax already.  It's a cleaning product over here, and that's that.  Hey, speaking of something ever so slightly back on topic, if Microsoft's ajax framework is called Atlas, what will the GNU version be called?



    Of course Gatlas (pronounced like "get less") ;-)



  • I just realized Gajax would be pronounced "Gay Jacks"



  • Hercules?

    I mean, surely they're smart enough to realize that it shouldn't try to hold up the world for too long?



  • @tster said:

    I just realized Gajax would be pronounced "Gay Jacks"

    There we go, hitting at the heart of the matter.  The sniggering of teenagers worldwide is the primary reason for there not being a gnu take-off on ajax.



  • Original license thread was better


  • SockDev

    @wharrgarbl said in Where do you stand on Licensing? (Flame advisory in effect):

    Original license thread was better

    GODDESSS DAMNI....... actually..... you're right.



  • @tufty said in Where do you stand on Licensing? (Flame advisory in effect):

    I would personally argue

    You would.... wouldn't you...



  • GODDAMNIT FBMAC

    Is that a new custom message where it's too lazy to say 11 years later?


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @dangeRuss I don't know about laziness (though some of the mods here seem to be proud of not doing work), but it is funnier this way.



  • @dangeRuss said in Where do you stand on Licensing? (Flame advisory in effect):

    Is that a new custom message where it's too lazy to say 11 years later?

    Yes for over 10 years.

    @antiquarian said in Where do you stand on Licensing? (Flame advisory in effect):

    but it is funnier this way.

    It was.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.