Software licensing

When providing the source to your open-source projects, what is your preferred license, and why? I personally have a disdain for the notion of profit being derived from my work without recuperation, particularly recuperation in the form of the said derived work being source available. This has blacklisted permissive licenses for me, but I'm also not at all a fan of the GPL: * The GPL currently dominates copyleft. Preferably, the GPL would have a "competitor" of sorts, particularly if it goes south - for example, the controversy of GPL 3.0's additional terms that left many large projects GPL 2.0 only. * The GPL is huge. While permissive licenses are often easy to read and understand, even as a layman, the GPL is practically incomprehensible. I understand additional terms add additional bloat, but I don't think the GPL's size is justified. * The GPL has stigma, particularly in commerce, partly for its terms and partly for its ties to Stallman's and the FSF's views. I think creating a new license with clearer terms and a more non-partisan author would improve its image. I've recently considered authoring my own source-available license with a very similar message to the GPL, but that comes with its own set of problems.

Depends on the project. I've used CC0 before for minor changes to other people's projects. I would probably use GPL for anything that could conceivably be abused for profit.

AGPLv3 SSPL is better but is nonfree.

>>49467 I'd recommend Toybox over CC0 because it's short and to the point. WTFPL plus the warranty disclaimer is also preferable to CC0, but I think Toybox wins because it's clearer. My experience is that even though people are not required to redistribute the CC0 license along with your code, they will do so anyway, even when incorporating the code into another project. To avoid projects accumulating pages upon pages of license bullshit, shorter is better.

WTFPL or other permissive license for protocols for rest - GPLv3 Why? > "This type of license is ideal for promoting the use of a reference body of code that implements a protocol for common service. This is another reason why we choose it for the Apache group - many of us wanted to see HTTP survive and become a true multiparty standard, and would not have minded in the slightest if Microsoft or Netscape choose to incorporate our HTTP engine or any other component of our code into their products, if it helped further the goal of keeping HTTP common…​ All this means that, strategically speaking, the project needs to maintain sufficient momentum, and that participants realize greater value by contributing their code to the project, even code that would have had value if kept proprietary." https://docs.freebsd.org/en/articles/bsdl-gpl/ If XMPP were not permissive, WhatsApp would have used a different method (e.g. MQTT) and a project like AstraChat or IRCcloud would not have arisen. We all benefit from the fact that we have a common standard, even if it is reserved (mobile phones are probably the best example) 2. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/bsd.html https://tinyurl.com/z39a2aru Apart from supporting interoperability, BSD licenses have no advantages. It's is like kicking dead whales down the beach, in IP world. disclaimer: why second link it's tinyurl? stupid filter: > Say the word [censored] again, I dare you. > Go away, spammer.

When licensing my programs, I only use either the GNU Affero General Public License version three or the Creative Commons Zero Public Domain Dedication; a program is either large or important enough to warrant protecting it and requiring copyleft, or so small or insignificant that I don't care and let whatever may befall it happen. There's no value in the middle positions, beyond trying to influence others in indirect ways, which I rarely want for. The middle positions achieve nothing significant.

>>49498 >disclaimer: why second link it's tinyurl? stupid filter: The filter is to prevent low iq opinions, like licenses with less restrictions make you less free somehow.

Apparently, one can see where a tinyurl link leads by curl-ing it up.

>>49498 Imagine you choose a restrictive license and prefer that nobody uses your stuff just because the idea that somebody somewhere somehow might make money is so upsetting for you. And then you accuse other people of having weak character lol.

>>49513 Except that your right to sell software isn't influenced by the GNU license. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html Something I've seen done is that prebuilt binaries are sold and you have to build it yourself otherwise. Ardour for instance. https://community.ardour.org/download So what exactly are you arguing? That you haven't even properly read through the license you're arguing against?

>>49466 What about ISC license or European Union Public Licence ?

>>49531 There's a good summary here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ISC http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#EUPL-1.2 They're both free software licenses but that European one doesn't seem to be used widely.

>>49518 Another FOSS business model is of course charging for support.

>>49567 >>49518 indeed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_models_for_open-source_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_open-source_applications_and_services hello retard >>49513

MPL is Mozilla's license, it requires others to give back but it's not viral and allows for static linking. It is based on source files, people only have to share the source of files licebsed under MPL.

refuse to use anything but AGPLv3 and CC0 now. I used to license my code under MIT and its one of my biggest fuarrrking regrets, feel like an absolute C.U.C.K. for ever using this permissive piece of soykaf license. literally fuarrrk all developers that use permissive licenses, this was a scheme by a bunch or corporations and idiots to have you do it for free with jack soykaf in return. learn from my mistakes anons, use as strong of a copyleft license as possible if your doing it for free

>>49613 Same. I maintain a few semi-sorta-niche-popular Go modules, all of them under the AGPLv3. The level of hate mail I get from certain people demanding that I relicense them under MIT or BSD is actually hilarious.

>>49617 Anonymize and post them.

>>49617 I've experienced similar criticisms I laugh at. This is from an old conversation, in which I showed someone one of my libraries, since he was looking for one with its function, and it started a general discussion: >Why did you give it this license, man, I cannot use this >would you consider relicensing it under a BSD or MIT license? >Even if they *did* use GPL, they could do a clean room implementation of a small bit and easily make a closed fork >I would disagree, GPL licensors tell you how to live your life and what you are allowed to do and not do >Proprietary projects absolutely have the budget to clean room reverse engineer your AGPL library if they want equivalent functionality. Lots of AGPL projects skip that step and sell a proprietary version in addition to their AGPL version. Who gets left out are the people in the middle, writing FOSS with AGPL-incompatible licenses. >As much as I would like to use your software and could, and there is nothing preventing me from making a widget library atop yours, I would rewrite it out of principle >As it stands right now. You just created a good incentive for someone to create a CC0 library out of spite. >Libraries aren't special unless you're doing some really niche advanced machine learning that requires a PhD to write it or something. Your AGPL library *is* going to be cloned if anyone cares. If it's being cloned for use in proprietary software, that clone might not even be shared with anyone else. >A useful library licensed under the AGPL might as well not exist. >As soon as there's a demand, someone will look for libraries, find yours, look at the license, close the tab, and write their own. >The point of an AGPL library (rather than application) *is* to infect your entire program. It's inherently political. This was years ago, and my library still hasn't been cloned.

>>49626 >>The point of an AGPL library (rather than application) *is* to infect your entire program. It's inherently political. Funny thing is, I agree with this, and this is why I specifically chose the AGPLv3 for my public modules. I get a real kick out of imagining the looks on developers' faces when they see my modules' licenses. The GPL and its variants are very uncommon in the Go world. Almost every popular public module is under some variant of MIT or BSD.

https://plusnigger.autism.exposed/ based kosher license The above copyright notice, this permission notice and the word "NIGGER" shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

I use the GPL3. I don't write network-related software, so it is perfect for me.

>>50277 Is there any actual drawback or tradeoff to using AGPL over GPL3?

>>50286 Not really, I just have no need for the extra clauses. It's kinda like how you do not use a language or framework with extra features that you do not need.

I normally use gpl or mit, depending on what i feel like. epl is a choice i used to use for java projects sometimes Is it possible / feasible to just write your own license for each project, or even modifying existing licenses to suit you? (of course putting that under a different name) Is there something legally stopping you from doing this?

>>50300 >Is it possible / feasible to just write your own license for each project, or even modifying existing licenses to suit you? (of course putting that under a different name) Is there something legally stopping you from doing this? not really that i know

>>50300 >Is it possible / feasible to just write your own license for each project, or even modifying existing licenses to suit you? (of course putting that under a different name) Is there something legally stopping you from doing this? You can make your own license but I don't recommend doing that without a help of a lawyer unless you want to create a joke license. Licenses are also subjects to copyrights so you can't just use, copy or modify them without permission. See the GPL as an example: GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 3, 29 June 2007 Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. <http://fsf.org/> Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. The license document itself states that you can't modify it. Having all rights reserved is the default state of any copyrightable work so if the license doesn't directly state you can modify it, then you can't.

>>50302 Can some freetard try to justify this? "I should be able to modify and distribute my own version of software an not allowing me to do so is an attack to my freedom!! Oh, licenses? No... hm... licenses are different ok?"

>>50303 First of all "Can some freetard try to justify this?" You're not on halfchan so please read the rules before posting and avoid using personal attacks. Second: it makes sure that malicious people don't make their own versions of the GPL that would allow them to make the code proprietary while parasitizing on the foundation's and the licenses good name. Lawyers at the FSF think, you don't.

>>50303 Did you even bother looking it up before spewing the soykaf? https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#ModifyGPL

>>49498 >WTFPL or other permissive license for protocols WTFPL don't protect to sue you for example, damage the software. Apache license 2.0 is FSF-approved permissive license.

Distributing source code kind of like donating to a charity GPL (or any similar copyleft style license) equivalent to making a large donation: You basically throw away any (or most, i guess) possibility for monetary gain as well as reducing your chance of other people using your software by choosing such a restrictive license. However in return you ensure that the code will benefit the ""free"" software environment the most (as no proprietary enterprise can touch it, and it may even actually force otherwise proprietary enterprises to go open source for it, for example see: android). I respect people who use this license the most. Open Source (non copyleft) is equivalent to making a small donation: You throw away most monetary possibilities, however you also increase the chance of other people using your software since it basically has no restrictions what so ever. So its kind of like a win win for both yourself and the free software environment. Its jus not doing anything to combat proprietary enterprises, like GPL does. I respect people who use this license a little, but not as much as GPL. Proprietary is equivalent to not making any donation at all. I dont really give any respect for using this license however i dont actually have anything against it either. I think people like stallman & free software fanatics who say proprietary software is inherently evil are, all retarded (although i still respect stallman for other reasons). Sure, i agree alot of proprietary software is evil (& that its the proprietary license that allows it to be evil) however ALL proprietary software is not inherently evil. You are evil if you use the proprietary nature to lure more money out of your users or do things that they did not assume would happen when they ran your software. However, something like selling a game for money is not evil. And putting restrictions such as "if i sell you this game you cannot install it on other peoples computers" is also not evil. I also think its perfectly fine to have multiple differently licensed projects on your resume. Like there is nothing wrong with having a couple of proprietary projects as well as some Open Source and GPL projects. Its a matter of which projects you want to "donate" and which you dont. Its not a religion where you HAVE to always use one license. Thats how i look at it anyways, what do you think lainanons?

>>50330 I agree with everything you said except for: >And putting restrictions such as "if i sell you this game you cannot install it on other peoples computers" is also not evil. This is an arbitrary restriction of user freedom.

>>50304 That sounds reasonable, but wouldn't this be similar to the Firefox branding situation? Quoting from the GNU website "their trademark license imposes requirements for the distribution of modified versions that make it inconvenient to exercise freedom 3" Couldn't the same thing be said about the restrictions on the GPL?

>>49498 i wish luke smith could learn to express himself without sounding like a retard to anyone who isnt a /g/ regular. his ideas are sometimes alright but im not going to entertain this "c*ck license" soykaf.

>>50333 >That sounds reasonable, but wouldn't this be similar to the Firefox branding situation? Copyleft was made to counter copyright within the legal framework of copyright. The license guarantees users have their four rights preserved but it can only do so if it can't be modified. If copyright didn't exist in the first place, it wouldn't be a problem. The license document is similar to the constitution - it can only guarantee you your rights if it can't be changed easily. Imagine if everyone could modify the constitution and still keep its name and status - it would quickly lose its original meaning or there would be over 9000 versions and many of them would deny basic human rights. So there has to be a monopoly that protects the license's status and the rights the license gives. And that's not the same as the Firefox branding problem - a license document can't hurt you by itself because it is just a text file. You can get hurt by a program if a malicious license applies to it but only then. The restrictions the GPL puts on itself doesn't affect the freedoms it gives to the users of the software. It is a pragmatic necessity that ensures the license retains its legal status and that users' rights are preserved.

>>50330 Charity is most often used as a tool for tax avoidance, controlling society and government with wealth, and disguising profitable gains like the Gates Foundation does. I don't know if copyleft is really analogous to these, but open source and proprietary "freeware" definitely can be.

GPLv3 I like it because it solves the free rider issue, and it is the most inline with natural law in a sense that it uses legal power to force people to act as a truly moral person would. The terms of this license are the only logical way for free software to survive in this day and age. If people do not feel obliged, by their own moral code, to contribute (basically follow the rules of the license) to a shared resource, that they attempt to benefit from, then they must do so by law. Sorry if it sounds weird, that was the best way I was able to word it.

>>49466 some GPL variation, I don't want anyone use my code in nonfree software

What about games being proprietary because otherwise there would be no fun in finding easter eggs?

>>50442 No different than book spoilers. Don't read ahead and don't look it up. No need to keep the source-code closed and proprietary.

can someone humor me with this for a moment? is there some sort of thinktank somewhere on what you can stipulate as license terms now that somewhat decentralized means of organization are possible through various peer to peer technologies? wasn't the general aim of GPL & copyleft to exist within the legal framework of yadda yadda to combat the great evil corporations... why not just create some license that is tied to a smart contract rather than in relation to law courts? and stipulate as a part of the new free-ER license that any use by corporate persons is disallowed as part of the terms for any reason for ever? :clog: idk a lot of talk about the self-governing freedom of decentralization tech has been lacking any reflection in the shape of real life, there is only the speculative market and practically no organization which takes as its basis that it has actually freed itself from centralized anything and issues its own declarations etc.

>>50485 In infoanarchism, each info is permissive in default, also GPL

i have never put a license on anything i made even at work i dont give a fuarrrk and let the higher ups figure it out >I personally have a disdain for the notion of profit being derived from my work without recuperation, these kinds of people do not belong in the open source community. or rather, we need a new community separate from open source

s/these kinds of people/these kinds of retards/

>>49466 You put the GPL on software you care about and want to see get developed. And you put a license designed for people who enjoy looking at dark-skinned men ravage their wives on soykaf you don't really care about. Yes, GPL violation is a thing but at least with the GPL you can actually do something about it, with permissive licenses you're confirming that you don't expect your project to get any contributions back at all. It's why the BSD operating systems are so far behind despite having a head start on linux.

How hard would it affect the sales of my game if I developed it completely openly under the AGPL license, but merely mentioned the fact that it's publicly hosted as a minor footnote in the credits page or something. I feel like it wouldn't affect sales at all since most gamers are pants-on-head retarded about anything more complex than downloading and file directories, as soon as they have to compile something themselves they'd soykaf themselves.

>>51607 Have a look at Mindustry for a recent example of a highly successful commercial libre game.

I have always used Unlicense. Anyone who uses AGPL or GPL is toxic and has never worked on proprietary software before.

>>51618 People in this thread don't seem to understand why any form GPL is generally bad so I'll spell it out - you can't statically link against a GPL library (even LGPL) without releasing your source code. Proprietary software orgs do not want to do this to protect IP, and many cases it actually comes down to security. The OpenSSL team have been very vocal about this in the past. You can't link to OpenSSL if you're linking to a GPL'd library, static or dynamic, doesn't matter. This is extremely toxic for the industry. If you want to play nicely, you need to pick BSD, Mozilla or Apache or other permissive licenses. You are actively fuarrrking over workers if you're releasing a large, well known library under GPL - the good thing is that very few of these seem to exist, the one I can think of is the mysql C++ library. That's LGPL. LGPL is at least salvageable because you can still dynamic link with it.

>>51619 > LGPL is at least salvageable because you can still dynamic link with it. Like in GPL, see linux > Proprietary software orgs do not want to do this to protect IP, and many cases it actually comes down to security 1. So? whose problem is this? 2. Security? don't make me laugh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerckhoffs%27s_principle Bait 2/10 because i respond

>>51619 >many cases it actually comes down to security Ah yes, security by obscurity.

>>51618 >Anyone who uses AGPL or GPL is toxic and has never worked on proprietary software before. We're sorry you can't use our GPL'd code in your proprietary program, lol. >>51619 >This is extremely toxic for the industry. Well, the GPL wasn't made with aiding corporate developers of proprietary software in mind. The industry can still link a GPL'd library dynamically, publish their code under a GPL-compliant license or write their own proprietary library/pay for a proprietary license if they don't like the terms of the GPL. Surely defending users' rights is toxic for the industry, as it undermines the profit of the big players who impose restrictive licenses over the users.

>>51619 >You are actively fuarrrking over workers if you're releasing a large, well known library under GPL Good.

>>51619 These kind of overdone brain-dead bait posts just make me more motivated to learn as much as I can within my field, and release as much GPL code as I possibly can. The way to win the fight over the cancer that is proprietary code, is to make better, more elegant and useful GPL code. People, do not give up. We can do this.

>>50300 >Is it possible / feasible to just write your own license for each project, or even modifying existing licenses to suit you? (of course putting that under a different name) Is there something legally stopping you from doing this? Legally, no. IP law can be counter-intuitive though, so you really need to know what youre doing to write your own license from scratch. Even if you dont care about loopholes, you might accidentally make your license incompatible with other viral licenses. A better approach if you want a custom license is to start with a few existing licenses that are almost what you want, then go clause by clause and decide which ones to include. If you find a clause that seems weird or you dont understand why it's there, look it up because there's probably some case law that makes it necessary... like I said IP is often counter-intuitive. This latter approach still requires you to do your homework, but its something a motivated amateur could accomplish without too much work.

>>51639 You're an incredibly charged individual. The GPL is so keyed, I plan on using it on all software I don't intend to keep closed source (a few game-like projects nothing utilitarian) because of how it anally rapes corporate scum with its massive, droning, long lines of copyleft energy..

>>51644 I am that same lainon. I actually have been thinking about videogames recently. Making videogames free software allows for anyone to see the code, but, doesn't that take away some of the "magic" of a videogame? The immersion, the spontaneous interactions you have with characters that might otherwise be perceived as "read". I remember a while ago I played skyrim on pc, and I was so blown away with how alive the NPCs felt, how they would sometimes interrupt you in the street for some quest you once did a while ago, how they would get mad if you talked to them for a long time. Some of that special will be gone if you can just see the code and know how the characters are scripted. Also, multiplayer games will become even more optimized and the meta will be absolute. Take warzone for example. The meta changes every week, and you can numerically prove how efficient are some weapons over others. You. will. get. rekt. if you use something that is not meta. Anticheats are another thing, if will be considerable harder to make anticheats work with free software. One thing I have been thinking might work is to have an algorithm analyze the player movements server-side, but it would have to be extremelly well made and work on a high-tickrate server. Part of me just wants to make a super proprietary videogame, extremelly immersive and intrusive, that even integrates with a custom linux distro, and part of me wants to make everything free software. Videogames are different from utilities. I see no evil in making game engines free software, since they are tools that are supposed to achieve your goal, and should not get int they way and control the user. But videogames ARE supposed to restrict your freedom (maybe sandbox games don't count) and provide you with an unparallel experience.

>>51648 Some games fall apart if you know everything about them from datamining the code. However, I think that since most gamers are absolute morons they won't ever read the code soo they won't really 'lose the magic', but you will get really detailed wiki articles instead. As for multiplayer games I think that most multiplayer games are just doomed to fall to the "meta" problem where everyone just optimizes the fun out of the game. However you also see private server projects for most mmo-type games so you might as well release it as open source. I think that for the majority of cases gamers just won't give a soykaf whether or not a game is proprietary or open source, most people can't use websites other than google so at most you'll be seeing the meta change really fast. Personally I think that for most cases unless you're doing some super-niche non-commercial obscurantist art game you'll be fine if you open source your game. I don't really think it'd take away the magic from games like skyrim since I think that it's a 'solved' game and people already have some idea as to how those NPCs are scripted. Something you have to realize as a programmer/coder etc is that to the average gamer you're a God. They don't know or care about the intricacies of the game's inner workings, nor do they want to learn them. Developers to them are just a priestly caste of people who can modify and update their games, only sometimes taking in feedback and other times not. Just do as you want I'll say. Game development isn't something you go into for money anyways, lord knows the average "business systems programmer" earns 300% what a programmer at any Big Game Company works for with all their crunch time and so on. That's all I have to say.

>>51639 >>51644 >>51648 >>51655 https://rosenzweig.io/blog/software-freedom-isnt-about-licenses-its-about-power.html

>>51648 >doesn't that take away some of the "magic" of a videogame? i think youre underestimating how much information can already be gleaned from compiled game files and assets. sure it might be harder to figure out exactly how certain interactions work, but anything id count as a big "spoiler" would be obvious from the asset files. you can exactly hide a secret boss when his 3d model and stat tuning files are right there. basically, i dont think the source code substantially changes how things are now, with respect to surprise/spoilers/"magic" >Also, multiplayer games will become even more optimized and the meta will be absolute is this not already the case? getting damage numbers for weapons and such is typically fairly easy. theyre almost never part of the actual source code so the worst youd have to do is reverse engineer some proprietary file format... but even thats uncommon. usually its all defined in xml or something. even if it was compiled in, or the file format is too obscure to decode, you can always just attach a debugger to the game and read out memory values... or just go low tech: pick an enemy with known hp and see how many hits it takes to die. >Anticheats are another thing, if will be considerable harder to make anticheats work with free software theres a lot to this question. first of all, i agree that most client side anti cheat would be trivialized by releasing the source code, but thats because its pure security through obscurity. client side anti cheat is kind of pwned from the get go. theres very little that you as a programmer can do to ensure that your users are running your software in an environment you approve of. there are things you can do to make cheaters' lives difficult, but ultimately youre on the losing side of the arms race. im not sure if theres a way to do client side anticheat that doesnt rely on security through obscurity, but its also not like game devs have had any real motivation to try making an alternative. theres also the fact that anticheat can be server side, which seems like a better way to deal with the issue in the long run. >But videogames ARE supposed to restrict your freedom (maybe sandbox games don't count) and provide you with an unparallel experience. why are you acting like your player base is hell bent on destroying the experience youre creating for them? even if they are, why do you care if they deliberately spoil their own experience. if you gave me a FOSS story driven video game the last thing id want to do is poke through the code and spoil the story for myself. however, if ive played the game a few times and want to see what else it has to offer i might try my hand at modding it, or at least look through the files to see if ive missed something. the kind of people who would be helped by having source code are the exact same people that love your game the most: the ones who have played it to death and still want more. i will concede that the competitive nature of certain multiplayer games introduces an incentive structure which may lead some players to ruin the game for themselves and others, but is simply obscuring how your game works actually a good solution to that problem? could you instead solve it by reconsidering the kinds of behaviors that your game incentivizes? look at it this way: if you want your player to see a certain set piece animation, is it better to take over their camera and force them to look at it, or is it better to bait them into looking at it with lighting, sound, level design, etc? this is basic game design stuff, and i think it applies on the meta level as well. if you dont want your players to fuarrrk with the source files, dont create a game that makes people want to fuarrrk with its source files.

>>51660 tl;dr for the last part: if your players are so hostile to the very concept of your game that they refuse to play it properly, i think youve got bigger problems than them figuring out how your damage system works.

>>51660 Thinking back on it, couldn't cheating in multiplayer games be fixed by having the server verify the client's checksum paradox game style?

>>51648 >I don't trust myself not to spoil the storyline for myself so games should be closed source

>>51619 You're telling us we're toxic to a metastasizing cancer sprouting surveillance state tumors everywhere it goes? Is this supposed to be a problem?

>>51648 >Anticheats are another thing, if will be considerable harder to make anticheats work with free software. Anticheat software has always been a mixed bag of barely working and fuarrrking over the experience of everyone else who plays legitimately. The time-tested method is simply to give players and server admins lots of tools to boot people they don't like. The only unstoppable anti-cheat is a rootkit that takes over your system, and nobody wants that.

best license for open hardware? Apache 2.0 ?

>>51671 yeah i didnt bring this up but i completely agree. ive never experienced substantial cheating problems on games with community servers (open source or not) because while cheating is difficult for software to detect, its pretty easy for human admins. >>51664 >couldn't cheating in multiplayer games be fixed by having the server verify the client's checksum paradox game style? how do you verify that the checksum is accurate? surely cheat software could just keep a clean copy of the client binary for this purpose. server side anticheat is more like validating the things that the clients report to the server by comparing them to its own authoritative game state. for instance, in minecraft the client can report anything it wants for the player's position, but if the server notices a discrepancy, like the player flying around in the sky, or moving too fast, or teleporting, then the server will automatically kick them.

>>49466 >i hate that my software might be helpful in production you are a retarded glitterboy kill yourself. permissive liscence chads stay rich