4 ms·
> I prefer to think of the distinction in this way: permissive licenses provide the maximum freedom for downstream developers (including the ability to use the
by chungy 10y ago
> I prefer to think of the distinction in this way: permissive licenses provide the maximum freedom for downstream developers (including the ability to use the open source code in a closed source project), whereas copyleft licenses provide the maximum freedom for downstream users.
This is a common analogy but it never sits well with me. Really, the permissive licenses allow the code to show up in places that copyleft licenses would not allow it. There are a ton of open source projects used in Microsoft Windows or iOS thanks to their permissive licensing -- and neither Microsoft nor Apple are legally obliged to give anything back.
Copyleft licenses prevent the software from being forked into a proprietary program and the changes hidden from the user. To take a random example, if Microsoft took GNU gzip and included it with Windows, and then extended it with new features, Microsoft would be obliged to provide the source code to those changes. If they took OpenBSD's implementation instead, they wouldn't be obliged in the same way (though they still _could_).
Remaining entirely in the open source world, these licenses concern redistribution of software. A user on OpenBSD does not feel they have any less freedom than a user on GNU/Linux. They don't have any less freedom, after all. Users on both systems retain the full gamut of freedom. To run for any purpose, to study the source code, to modify the source code, to redistribute the software verbatim or modified. The difference shows up when it comes to this: Do you want to be an asshole? OpenBSD permits the option -- you can distribute a fork without the source code. You cannot do that with a GPL-licensed system.
The FSF and other GPL advocates usually ride on the premise that opening up the possibility for downstreams to be assholes is bad, with few exceptions. I do respect their opinions, but I feel like the history of open source (and the *BSDs, even) show that such assholes don't get very far. They simply cannot compete with the pace of open and transparent development and die off on their own. Frankly, being an asshole is an irrational and unprofitable (socially and commercially) move, and trying to nanny the behavior away isn't all that necessary.
- Flimm 10y agoYou're comparing users of OpenBSD to users of GNU/Linux, but why not compare both of them to users of Windows and OS X? Why is FLOSS software pitted against each other, instead of FLOSS software against proprietary and closed source software?
- chungy 10y agoI'm sorry, I didn't mean to pit them against each other, just pointing out that users of either system enjoy the same freedoms regardless of the license choices. :-) Windows, OS X, iOS, and all other proprietary systems do, in fact, restrict users and objectively have fewer freedoms than free ones.
- AimHere 10y agoAnd there is, or was, BSD code in both Windows and OSX, some of which was locked off in proprietary parts. OSX also contains some GPLed code, all of which is available to the user under righteous free software terms (as is at least some of their permissive-licensed code). The problem that Stallman and the FSF complain about isn't the relative freedom of the users of OpenBSD and GNU/Linux, but what happens to the freedoms of users who are further downstream.
- vertex-four 10y agoThere's not a small number of cases where people's work was coopted to create successful proprietary software. JunOS is closed-source and based on FreeBSD - the PS4's OS similarly so. When I went scrolling through an old iPod's copyright page, there's an incredible amount of MIT/BSD-licensed software in there. And so on and so forth.
- JackdawX 10y ago> Really, the permissive licenses allow the code to show up in places that copyleft licenses would not allow it. There are a ton of open source projects used in Microsoft Windows or iOS thanks to their permissive licensing -- and neither Microsoft nor Apple are legally obliged to give anything back. This whole sentence is backwards isn't it? A libre license does not restrict code from being used by Microsoft or Apple, it is those companies that restrict their developers from using libre licensed code. The license doesn't care who uses it. Apple used the GCC project as their primary compiler for many years, contributing objective-c to it.
- ent 10y agoCopyleft licenses are more about the freedom of users in the future, instead of now. If all software was mit/bsd licensed, there wouldn't be any need for gpl as anyone could modify and redistribute any piece of software freely. Gpl is intended to force us toward that state in the future.
- cyphar 10y ago> I feel like the history of open source (and the BSDs, even) show that such assholes don't get very far. Some versions of the SONY PlayStations are based on FreeBSD. The users of said PlayStations don't have any software freedom because the entire OS is proprietary. Assholes like this do exist, and if FreeBSD (and the other BSDs) were copylefted this wouldn't have happened. There are other examples (essentially any example of a company using BSD as the basis for their OS), but the point is pretty clear IMO.