All other licenses are cuck licenses

Copyleft licences are the only true free software licences. All other open source licenses are just proprietariable.

What do those words mean? What is proprietariable and copyleft? Or is that the joke?
- Not a joke.
  
  Copy left is like the Robin Hood of the copyright world. Basically, it’s a type of licensing where, sure, you can use, modify, and distribute the copyrighted work, but there’s a catch. You have to give the same rights to anyone else for any derivative works. So, if you modify the work, you can’t just slap a new copyright on it and restrict its use. It’s a way to ensure that the work stays free for everyone to use. It’s pretty popular in the open source community. It’s like copyright turned on its head, hence the name “copyleft”.
- proprietariable just means the code can be taken and rerelased as proprietary (no freedoms all rights reserved).
You think that a license that imposes more restrictions on its use is more free than one that imposes fewer???

Where my Apache-2.0 gang at?
- This argument reminds me of the Tolerance Paradox described by Karl Popper, who stated that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.
  
  In the licensing context, yes, the Apache and Expat licenses may grant your users the freedom to create proprietary software out of your works, but at the cost of sacrificing all the basic freedoms of all the users that will use the derived non-free product.
  
  So, like Popper said that you should prefer removing the "smaller" freedom for a society of being intolerant in order to guarantee the "greater" one of remaining tolerant in the future, since you still have to choose which freedoms you are going to negate, it's preferable to use copyleft and impede the "smaller" freedom of creating proprietary software than not using it and allowing the crushing of future users' fundamental rights.
- Well, it depends on your perspective. Copyleft licenses restrict downstream developers in order to protect the rights of downstream users.
- MITboi here.
GPL is so free that it conflicts with other versions of GPL because this version wants to prevent you from restricting freedom and that other version tries to restrict your freedom by preventing you from restricting freedom.

All that really does is guarantee that the professor will catch anyone cheating

The meme is gigachad not 9000 IQ so your objection is overruled
would be easier than to try and catch people slipping eachother code, no?
- It's really easy to detect duplicate programs. I've failed multiple students due to cheating on assignments. Code obfuscation is incredibly easy to detect using something like MOSS .

Of course gigachad uses a thinkpad

You buy a thinkpad so you can feel like a superior techbro.

I buy a thinkpad so I can decompile the chinese spyware embedded in the hardware.

We are not the same.

Code web app class homework assignment. Put a link to the AGPL on the main page. Let another student access the main page from their personal smartphone. Give them a copy of the source code. When professor accuses you of helping them cheat, you can tell the professor you legally had to.

I know this is a joke, but assuming you're the author, then you're under no obligation to follow the license. Only people to whom you transmitted the code are bound by its terms.
- I think you're wrong about that?
  
  If in my hypothetical, I'd used the GPL rather than the AGPL, or if I'd neglected to let the other student access the main page, you'd definitely be right.
  
  But AGPL is basically "GPL but also accessing the software over a network counts as distribution."
  
  So, if I let you access my AGPL software over a network, I've granted you the right to demand the source code from me, just as if I distribute a compiled executable to you under the GPL, I've granted you the right to demand the source code from me.
even better, use an import that has AGPL license so it's not your fault.

most new projects are in MIT?

My grades weren't good enough so I license most of my code Community College Licence.
- Fucking LOL
That's certainly possible, but it's only lukewarm open-source. People can prefer spicy licenses.
Apache2 is preferred nowadays.
- What's the difference between the two? I've always used MIT because frankly I don't care who the hell uses my shitty code or where it winds up.