5 ms·

Unless your usage includes redistribution, GPL/BSD licensing differences have little effect on end-users. Also, the definition of one license is "more free" th

Unless your usage includes redistribution, GPL/BSD licensing differences have little effect on end-users. Also, the definition of one license is "more free" than the other is completely subjective and is wholly dependent on the perspective of the licensee.

daveguy 10y ago
> Also, the definition of one license is "more free" than the other is completely subjective and is wholly dependent on the perspective of the licensee. That is just false. BSD has fewer restrictions. GPL has more restrictions. No subjective interpretation needed.
- liw 10y ago
  The BSD license allows the software to be made non-free. The GPL doesn't. To me, this means the GPL wins on freedom. Not everyone agrees. Hence, subjective interpretation. Saying otherwise is just trolling.
  - nercht12 10y ago
    >> "The BSD license allows the software to be made non-free." Let's clarify: Technically, it allows the copy (distributed with the proprietary software) to become non-free, though the original and any other copies of the original are still free. Technically, BSD is more "free" than GPL to the first copier, even if not so to everyone else who obtains it from the first copier. The "subjective interpretation" then is from the point of view of the next guy in line.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > The BSD license allows the software to be made non-free. No, it doesn't. It allows non-free software being made incorporating the free software, but the free software remains free. It also allows free software with different terms than the original to be made also incorporating the free software which remains available under the original terms.
- susam 10y ago
  In case of open source licenses, the opposite of "restrictive" is "permissive", not "more free". Yes, the BSD license has fewer restrictions than the GPL. That makes the BSD license a more permissive license, not necessarily a more free license. The BSD license allows licensed code to be used in proprietary software but the GPL requires any derivative work to be licensed under the GPL thereby guaranteeing that the licensed code is always used in free software. Therefore, one can argue that the GPL license is "more free".
- belorn 10y ago
  Free, that being freedom, that being liberty, is not based on the existence of restrictions. The place where everyone can enjoy freedom the most is not the jungle, nor is it the lawless land. Freedom from oppression means that the oppressors are restricted, and you can't install your spyware and call it DRM that can't be legally removed. Freedom from coercion means that you can't coerce someone, and security researchers can live without fear of EUAL's or copyright licenses that forbid the disassembling of software. No 7-year-old girl will be sued because of art which is based on what I have made, and no one will be sent to prison because they dared to share a copy to a friend. "freedom is not as Sir Robert Filmer defines it: 'A liberty for everyone to do what he likes, to live as he pleases, and not to be tied by any laws'. Freedom is constrained by laws in both the state of nature and political society." - John Locke (1632–1704)

daveguy 10y ago

> Also, the definition of one license is "more free" than the other is completely subjective and is wholly dependent on the perspective of the licensee. That is just false. BSD has fewer restrictions. GPL has more restrictions. No subjective interpretation needed.

liw 10y ago
The BSD license allows the software to be made non-free. The GPL doesn't. To me, this means the GPL wins on freedom. Not everyone agrees. Hence, subjective interpretation. Saying otherwise is just trolling.
- nercht12 10y ago
  >> "The BSD license allows the software to be made non-free." Let's clarify: Technically, it allows the copy (distributed with the proprietary software) to become non-free, though the original and any other copies of the original are still free. Technically, BSD is more "free" than GPL to the first copier, even if not so to everyone else who obtains it from the first copier. The "subjective interpretation" then is from the point of view of the next guy in line.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > The BSD license allows the software to be made non-free. No, it doesn't. It allows non-free software being made incorporating the free software, but the free software remains free. It also allows free software with different terms than the original to be made also incorporating the free software which remains available under the original terms.
susam 10y ago
In case of open source licenses, the opposite of "restrictive" is "permissive", not "more free". Yes, the BSD license has fewer restrictions than the GPL. That makes the BSD license a more permissive license, not necessarily a more free license. The BSD license allows licensed code to be used in proprietary software but the GPL requires any derivative work to be licensed under the GPL thereby guaranteeing that the licensed code is always used in free software. Therefore, one can argue that the GPL license is "more free".
belorn 10y ago
Free, that being freedom, that being liberty, is not based on the existence of restrictions. The place where everyone can enjoy freedom the most is not the jungle, nor is it the lawless land. Freedom from oppression means that the oppressors are restricted, and you can't install your spyware and call it DRM that can't be legally removed. Freedom from coercion means that you can't coerce someone, and security researchers can live without fear of EUAL's or copyright licenses that forbid the disassembling of software. No 7-year-old girl will be sued because of art which is based on what I have made, and no one will be sent to prison because they dared to share a copy to a friend. "freedom is not as Sir Robert Filmer defines it: 'A liberty for everyone to do what he likes, to live as he pleases, and not to be tied by any laws'. Freedom is constrained by laws in both the state of nature and political society." - John Locke (1632–1704)