27 ms·

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

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...

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...