5 ms·

We're free to make our own licensing choices of course. This is all in an interest of a discussion. As I said, this is a choice between not passing on any less

We're free to make our own licensing choices of course. This is all in an interest of a discussion. As I said, this is a choice between not passing on any less freedom you yourself received vs the absolute freedom to do whatever. As far as the GPL is concerned, your code cannot be more free, because it's precisely the limits the GPL imposes that make it valuable. I'd say the BSD is more "developer-friendly", whereas the GPL is more "user-friendly", in a broader sense. The BSD licenses are more 'absolutely free' in a libertarian sense, whereas the GPL offers certain guarantees and if your definition of freedom fails within, they're a lot stronger than what BSD offers, but it's not for everybody.

_ph_ 6y ago
You cannot separate the user from the programmer, because without a programmer there isn't a software for the user to use. And to require to make the source available for any GPL software used in a project is a very valid request. To relicense other parts of the project isn't.
- hvis 6y ago
  That's just a question of where one software ends and another begins. Essentially, for lawyers to decide. But that's also why LGPL exists.
  - _ph_ 6y ago
    The question is clearly determined by copyright law. If I call a function, this doesn't make the calling function a derived work. LGPL is the GPL variant which is usually reasonable to use, as it doesn't require any other parts of the program to be put under (L)GPL. However, there are some technical details with the license which make problems. It basically assumes that the code put under LGPL is delivered as a shared library. But that doesn't work with many languages. Especially the requirement, that the user needs to be able to modify and relink the code under LGPL is a big headache, if not a deal breaker in many situations.
    - hvis 6y ago
      > The question is clearly determined by copyright law. If I call a function, this doesn't make the calling function a derived work. It does make the called function a part of your program, however. Because if that function is not available on the target system (in a shared library or whatever), your program will simply blow up.
      - _ph_ 6y ago
        Well, sure, a missing function will cause the program to fail to function. But what has this to do with the discussion? The copyright of the program is clearly mine. The copyright of the functions linked into my program is that of the functions copyright holder. The license regulates my right to link the functions in my program. But unfortunately, the license tries to affect my copyrights to my program parts.
        hvis 6y ago
        It just regulates the conditions under which the (hopefully) dynamic library is distributed. If the question comes to court (IIUC, this particular case has never been tested), you are just as likely to be ordered to pay for copyright infringement damages, rather than release your software under a GPL-compatible license. You'd have to rewrite it somehow as well, of course.

_ph_ 6y ago

You cannot separate the user from the programmer, because without a programmer there isn't a software for the user to use. And to require to make the source available for any GPL software used in a project is a very valid request. To relicense other parts of the project isn't.

hvis 6y ago
That's just a question of where one software ends and another begins. Essentially, for lawyers to decide. But that's also why LGPL exists.
- _ph_ 6y ago
  The question is clearly determined by copyright law. If I call a function, this doesn't make the calling function a derived work. LGPL is the GPL variant which is usually reasonable to use, as it doesn't require any other parts of the program to be put under (L)GPL. However, there are some technical details with the license which make problems. It basically assumes that the code put under LGPL is delivered as a shared library. But that doesn't work with many languages. Especially the requirement, that the user needs to be able to modify and relink the code under LGPL is a big headache, if not a deal breaker in many situations.
  - hvis 6y ago
    > The question is clearly determined by copyright law. If I call a function, this doesn't make the calling function a derived work. It does make the called function a part of your program, however. Because if that function is not available on the target system (in a shared library or whatever), your program will simply blow up.
    - _ph_ 6y ago
      Well, sure, a missing function will cause the program to fail to function. But what has this to do with the discussion? The copyright of the program is clearly mine. The copyright of the functions linked into my program is that of the functions copyright holder. The license regulates my right to link the functions in my program. But unfortunately, the license tries to affect my copyrights to my program parts.
      - hvis 6y ago
        It just regulates the conditions under which the (hopefully) dynamic library is distributed. If the question comes to court (IIUC, this particular case has never been tested), you are just as likely to be ordered to pay for copyright infringement damages, rather than release your software under a GPL-compatible license. You'd have to rewrite it somehow as well, of course.