4 ms·

They are different, and that's fine. Personally I lean more towards the BSD/MIT style of licensing than GPL; I feel the former is "more free" from the developer

They are different, and that's fine. Personally I lean more towards the BSD/MIT style of licensing than GPL; I feel the former is "more free" from the developer's side because it doesn't tell her what she can't do with her code. The GPL forces the developer's hand (though in a way that benefits society as a whole), whereas BSD says "it's your code, do what you will". All of that said, the GPL is perhaps one of the most important parts of the modern software ecosystem; without it we wouldn't have Linux, and FOSS as we know it wouldn't exist. The world is a better place because of the GPL.

hannob 9y ago
The BSD/GPL question is independent of the free software / open source term. Both the OSI and the FSF accept GPL and BSD-style licenses. So both GPL and BSD code is free software and open source software.
- morganvachon 9y ago
  Are you sure about that? gnu.org has a huge beef with BSD, they are actively campaigning for any developer considering BSD to use GPL instead[1]. Basically, anything that is not 100% copyleft is considered non-Free by GNU and FSF. Again, that doesn't bother me; to each their own. I'm not a developer so you might say I have no skin in this issue. However, I stand by my assertion that BSD gives the lone developer more freedom at the expense of social needs, whereas the GPL takes freedom away from the lone developer but puts necessary power in the hands of society as a whole (the so-called "viral" aspect of GPL). Neither is "right" or "wrong", and I'm happy we have a choice at all. [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/bsd.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/bsd.en.html
  - hannob 9y ago
    > gnu.org has a huge beef with BSD, they are actively campaigning for any developer considering BSD to use GPL instead[1]. Basically, anything that is not 100% copyleft is considered non-Free by GNU and FSF. Not true. Just look here: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html Plenty of BSD-ish licenses that are in the free software categories. The FSF's and GNU proejct's position is that they prefer GPL over BSD, but nowhere do they say BSDish licensed code is not free software.
  - carussell 9y ago
    That's not a campaign against BSD-style licenses. It's a campaign against the advertising clause that was present in the "old" 4-clause BSD license. (And the page you link to couldn't really be clearer.) It's also worth pointing out that the "campaign" originated 20 years ago and was more or less successful—Berkeley themselves agreed with the campaign and dropped the advertising clause. FreeBSD stripped the license down further to 2 clauses. Nowadays, the 2- and 3-clause BSD licenses are the most popularly adopted versions for anyone choosing BSD—if you hear anyone talking about the BSD license, they're almost definitely referring to one of these two—and this campaign is the reason why. So, no, that's not a link to an historical campaign against BSD. If anything, it was a campaign that strengthened BSD by making it a more attractive license choice. EDIT: I just reread your comment, and it makes me sad and wonder how people get away with convincing themselves it's okay to outright lie about things or pretend to know more about something than they do. > Basically, anything that is not 100% copyleft is considered non-Free by GNU and FSF. This is unequivocally false. Not only is this not the FSF's position (e.g., that you might be able to infer based on what they don't say and trying to read between the lines), but there's a wealth of information that the FSF and GNU have published that directly contradicts this. I get the terrible feeling that you've never actually read any of FSF or GNU's firsthand opinion pieces; that you instead respond to the distorted phantom arguments that appear in message board conversations after RMS and Co's position has been filtered through n retellings in the comments. Worse still, you're helping to propagate this to other people. Please don't contribute to the problem. Please stop doing this.
    - morganvachon 9y ago
      From the link I posted (emphasis mine): There are many variants of simple non-copyleft free software licenses, such as the Expat license, FreeBSD license, X10 license, the X11 license, and the two BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution) licenses. They outright say BSD is not copyleft, which means it is not Free Software by the FSF definition, though it is Open Source. Anyway, all I was trying to say is that GPL and BSD are both sensible licenses, the main difference being that the GPL restricts developer freedoms in order to provide user freedoms, while BSD does not restrict either. That doesn't make GPL bad or BSD better, it's simply two different philosophies and I for one am grateful to both. If you are intent on calling me a liar for that, so be it, though you should know that ad hominem attacks are not welcome here.

hannob 9y ago

The BSD/GPL question is independent of the free software / open source term. Both the OSI and the FSF accept GPL and BSD-style licenses. So both GPL and BSD code is free software and open source software.

morganvachon 9y ago
Are you sure about that? gnu.org has a huge beef with BSD, they are actively campaigning for any developer considering BSD to use GPL instead[1]. Basically, anything that is not 100% copyleft is considered non-Free by GNU and FSF. Again, that doesn't bother me; to each their own. I'm not a developer so you might say I have no skin in this issue. However, I stand by my assertion that BSD gives the lone developer more freedom at the expense of social needs, whereas the GPL takes freedom away from the lone developer but puts necessary power in the hands of society as a whole (the so-called "viral" aspect of GPL). Neither is "right" or "wrong", and I'm happy we have a choice at all. [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/bsd.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/bsd.en.html
- hannob 9y ago
  > gnu.org has a huge beef with BSD, they are actively campaigning for any developer considering BSD to use GPL instead[1]. Basically, anything that is not 100% copyleft is considered non-Free by GNU and FSF. Not true. Just look here: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html Plenty of BSD-ish licenses that are in the free software categories. The FSF's and GNU proejct's position is that they prefer GPL over BSD, but nowhere do they say BSDish licensed code is not free software.
- carussell 9y ago
  That's not a campaign against BSD-style licenses. It's a campaign against the advertising clause that was present in the "old" 4-clause BSD license. (And the page you link to couldn't really be clearer.) It's also worth pointing out that the "campaign" originated 20 years ago and was more or less successful—Berkeley themselves agreed with the campaign and dropped the advertising clause. FreeBSD stripped the license down further to 2 clauses. Nowadays, the 2- and 3-clause BSD licenses are the most popularly adopted versions for anyone choosing BSD—if you hear anyone talking about the BSD license, they're almost definitely referring to one of these two—and this campaign is the reason why. So, no, that's not a link to an historical campaign against BSD. If anything, it was a campaign that strengthened BSD by making it a more attractive license choice. EDIT: I just reread your comment, and it makes me sad and wonder how people get away with convincing themselves it's okay to outright lie about things or pretend to know more about something than they do. > Basically, anything that is not 100% copyleft is considered non-Free by GNU and FSF. This is unequivocally false. Not only is this not the FSF's position (e.g., that you might be able to infer based on what they don't say and trying to read between the lines), but there's a wealth of information that the FSF and GNU have published that directly contradicts this. I get the terrible feeling that you've never actually read any of FSF or GNU's firsthand opinion pieces; that you instead respond to the distorted phantom arguments that appear in message board conversations after RMS and Co's position has been filtered through n retellings in the comments. Worse still, you're helping to propagate this to other people. Please don't contribute to the problem. Please stop doing this.
  - morganvachon 9y ago
    From the link I posted (emphasis mine): There are many variants of simple non-copyleft free software licenses, such as the Expat license, FreeBSD license, X10 license, the X11 license, and the two BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution) licenses. They outright say BSD is not copyleft, which means it is not Free Software by the FSF definition, though it is Open Source. Anyway, all I was trying to say is that GPL and BSD are both sensible licenses, the main difference being that the GPL restricts developer freedoms in order to provide user freedoms, while BSD does not restrict either. That doesn't make GPL bad or BSD better, it's simply two different philosophies and I for one am grateful to both. If you are intent on calling me a liar for that, so be it, though you should know that ad hominem attacks are not welcome here.