Why I Use the GPL and Not Cuck Licenses | Luke Smith

Every piece of software I write I license under the GNU Public License<br>Version 3 (GPLv3)<br>unless I have forked it from something else.

The GPLv3 is the premiere copyleft license, meaning that it not<br>only allows users to run, modify and distribute their own versions of<br>what I write, but it also requires that no one in that chain of<br>development restrict and close-source that software: it and software<br>deriving from it must forever remain open, usable and sharable. Richard<br>Stallman, one of the minds behind the GPL has described it as a "hack"<br>of the copyright system because it uses the legal infrastructure of<br>copyright to ensure software is free rather than restricted.

But occasionally I get asked why I don't use so-called permissive licenses like BSD or MIT. These are free software licenses, but<br>they do not require that forked versions of the code be free and open<br>source software. In other words, you can take something written with a<br>BSD or MIT license, put it in the next version of Windows and no one<br>will ever know. If you did that with GPL code, you'd be in for big<br>legal trouble if found out.

I and others have recently taken to calling these permissive licenses<br>Cuck Licenses.

Why "Cuck Licenses?"

Why be mean and bully BSD and MIT licenses calling them "Cuck<br>Licenses?"

Quite simply, using them is precisely analogous to being cuckolded. When<br>you really look at it, the similarity is uncanny.

I understand GPL free software and its ethical vision for software. I<br>also understand that desire for people and businesses to not release<br>their source code for commercial and monetary benefits. What I don't<br>understand is simultaneously releasing free code with no requirement<br>that it remain free. It can now be used against you and others—if you<br>had moral qualms about that, you could've at least made money off of<br>it yourself.

Using a Cuck License especially for "ethical reasons" or "because I<br>like open source software" is beyond absurd. You're simply writing<br>code and effectively abandoning the privileges of intellectual property<br>while allowing any large corporation to come and close-source and<br>monetize your software and sell it back to you without any other<br>obligations. You have also abandoned your ability to ever complain about<br>IBM, Microsoft, Apple or any other tech giant because you are<br>literally writing their proprietary software . These companies even<br>sometimes take very simple code from minor projects and use it to save a<br>buck and a little effort.

img true 0 {{} {{} 0} {{} {0 0}}} {{} {{} 0} {{} {0 0}}} 2832 { 0 0 0} }" title="'Noooo! You can't use my heckin' code that I legally gave you the right to use!'"loading="lazy"<br>>When you license with a permissive license, you don't have a say anymore.

At the end of the day, using a Cuck License is little different from<br>either releasing software in the public domain or just not licensing it<br>(in some jurisdictions, at least). It has the pretense of a license, but<br>for no real function. I suppose depending on which you use, you at least<br>get your name on the license, but I hardly think that that's how<br>internet fame and glory is actually distributed anyway. As far as I'm<br>concerned using a Cuck License is worse for user freedom than just<br>releasing it in the public domain . This is because at least public<br>domain software can be taken and later additions can be protected by the<br>GPL. The legal case for doing that with a Cuck License is not so clear.

No whiners!

The funniest thing is when Cuck Licensers complain that people are<br>abiding by their licenses. They will complain that people took their<br>code and made money off of it. They will complain when they don't get<br>some social credit they feel like they deserve when their code is used<br>in a project. They will complain if people fork their project and it<br>becomes more popular than the original. They will complain when some<br>tech giant takes their code and makes spyware out of it.

If they were serious about stopping any of this, they easily could've<br>by licensing their project as anything other than a code giveaway. If<br>you want praise for some contribution, put it in the license. If you<br>don't want your software used for proprietary software, use the GPLv3.

A Cuck Licenser gets what he deserves (and we all pay the price).

One of the funniest and saddest horror stories of Cuck Licenses I can<br>think of is Andrew Tanenbaum, who released MINIX, an operating system,<br>under a BSD license. Intel silently took this software (thanks to its<br>license) and unbeknownst to him, used it for their Intel Management<br>Engine, making it the OS of the spyware microprocessor/backdoor now<br>running in all Intel CPUs . We all have a permanent NSA backdoor<br>because of the Intel Management Engine—all made possibly by Cuck<br>License cuckery.

Only many, many years later was this even revealed to<br>Tanenbaum. Read that blog post of his<br>as he slowly externalizes his mixed feelings, tinged with guilt. After<br>all, on...