3 ms·

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

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.
- carussell 9y ago
  > They outright say BSD is not copyleft Do you think this contradicts something I wrote above? Are you intentionally trying to use misdirection here? No one would dispute that BSD is a non-copyleft license. You're using a really underhanded style of argumentation, where you make some statement X that is controversial and untrue, and when pressed about X, defend some obviously true statement Y. This can come off looking like a "win" for you, but only if nobody is paying attention. > Anyway, all I was trying to say is This is the written word, so it's easy to see what you said--and it's easy to see if you're attempting to rewrite it, too. Here's what you did say (and consequently, what you should be defending, not whether or not BSD is not a copyleft license): > 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. > 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. I know what's permissable, thanks. And Person B making some claim that Person A lied is not an example of ad hominem, by the way. This form of misdirection is something else that only works if no one is paying attention. EDIT: > [Not copyleft] means it is not Free Software by the FSF definition Sorry, you're not going to be able to get away with saying so many untrue things—especially when they are verifiably[1][2] untrue. It is not the position of the FSF (or GNU or RMS or...) that licenses must be copyleft to be considered free. Stop propagating falsehoods. Please spend 15 minutes reviewing the actual positions of the people you're trying to comment on. Otherwise, what's the point of saying anything at all? 1. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#OriginalBSD https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#OriginalBS... 2. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#ModifiedBSD https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#ModifiedBS...

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.

carussell 9y ago
> They outright say BSD is not copyleft Do you think this contradicts something I wrote above? Are you intentionally trying to use misdirection here? No one would dispute that BSD is a non-copyleft license. You're using a really underhanded style of argumentation, where you make some statement X that is controversial and untrue, and when pressed about X, defend some obviously true statement Y. This can come off looking like a "win" for you, but only if nobody is paying attention. > Anyway, all I was trying to say is This is the written word, so it's easy to see what you said--and it's easy to see if you're attempting to rewrite it, too. Here's what you did say (and consequently, what you should be defending, not whether or not BSD is not a copyleft license): > 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. > 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. I know what's permissable, thanks. And Person B making some claim that Person A lied is not an example of ad hominem, by the way. This form of misdirection is something else that only works if no one is paying attention. EDIT: > [Not copyleft] means it is not Free Software by the FSF definition Sorry, you're not going to be able to get away with saying so many untrue things—especially when they are verifiably[1][2] untrue. It is not the position of the FSF (or GNU or RMS or...) that licenses must be copyleft to be considered free. Stop propagating falsehoods. Please spend 15 minutes reviewing the actual positions of the people you're trying to comment on. Otherwise, what's the point of saying anything at all? 1. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#OriginalBSD https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#OriginalBS... 2. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#ModifiedBSD https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#ModifiedBS...