3 ms·

> GPL is certainly better than a license prohibiting commercial use. The GPL prohibits some commercial use. The BSD license does not.

eitland 5y ago
> The GPL prohibits some commercial use. > The BSD license does not. Really a nitpick but is this actually true? I mean the GPL actually defends your right to do whatever you want with the software including selling or renting it out. What it restrict is what limitations you can put on those who use it, but (and here comes the nitpick): prohibiting others from using something in a certain way isn't what I'd call "commercial use" or "use". I guess a lawyer could argue that but in everyday speak, no. Not a native speaker though.
- bifrost 5y ago
  Yes, it is true in the way that you're talking about it.
- paavohtl 5y ago
  > I mean the GPL actually defends your right to do whatever you want with the software including selling or renting it out. But realistically, practically, you can't. There is nothing to sell if the software has to be open source. The list of commercial GPL applications is really short compared to the millions of applications which include BSD-licensed code.
  - drran 5y ago
    This is not true. Many small but successful companies are released their code using AGPL3 license, so you can see and contribute to the code, but cannot compete with them using the same code. The typical business model is a paid hosting and paid support for the product.
    - eitland 5y ago
      > so you can see and contribute to the code, but cannot compete with them using the same code. You actually can. You just cannot without giving back. That's the intended beauty of it. Edit: let me point out that I am not an AGPL evangelist. I'm less annoyed at it than I used to be but I still prefer liberal licenses for almost everything.
renewiltord 5y ago
The BSD also prohibits some commercial use.
- trasz 5y ago
  How?
  - renewiltord 5y ago
    You need to attribute. So commercial projects that do not want to attribute are not permitted to use the code.
    - juped 5y ago
      this does not in any way prevent commercial use
      - renewiltord 5y ago
        Really? So if I want to include BSD code without attributing in my commercial software, I can distribute the binary? That’s rhetorical. I can’t do so legally without receiving a different license for the copyrighted code. The counter example to what you claim is trivial to construct.
        trasz 5y ago
        Yes, you can, assuming we're talking about the modern BSD license. So, your point was?
        renewiltord 5y ago
        This is wrong. 3-clause BSD requires reproduction of copyright notice. You cannot distribute commercial derivatives of BSD-licensed code without including attribution. It’s literally clause two.
toast0 5y ago
The GPL may make commercial use infeasible, but the Descent public license has gems like: > IN NO EVENT SHALL THE END-USER USE THE COMPUTER CODE CONTAINED HEREIN FOR REVENUE-BEARING PURPOSES Which is still better than no source release. But it doesn't get your code out and used by other projects.

eitland 5y ago

> The GPL prohibits some commercial use. > The BSD license does not. Really a nitpick but is this actually true? I mean the GPL actually defends your right to do whatever you want with the software including selling or renting it out. What it restrict is what limitations you can put on those who use it, but (and here comes the nitpick): prohibiting others from using something in a certain way isn't what I'd call "commercial use" or "use". I guess a lawyer could argue that but in everyday speak, no. Not a native speaker though.

bifrost 5y ago
Yes, it is true in the way that you're talking about it.
paavohtl 5y ago
> I mean the GPL actually defends your right to do whatever you want with the software including selling or renting it out. But realistically, practically, you can't. There is nothing to sell if the software has to be open source. The list of commercial GPL applications is really short compared to the millions of applications which include BSD-licensed code.
- drran 5y ago
  This is not true. Many small but successful companies are released their code using AGPL3 license, so you can see and contribute to the code, but cannot compete with them using the same code. The typical business model is a paid hosting and paid support for the product.
  - eitland 5y ago
    > so you can see and contribute to the code, but cannot compete with them using the same code. You actually can. You just cannot without giving back. That's the intended beauty of it. Edit: let me point out that I am not an AGPL evangelist. I'm less annoyed at it than I used to be but I still prefer liberal licenses for almost everything.

renewiltord 5y ago

The BSD also prohibits some commercial use.

trasz 5y ago
How?
- renewiltord 5y ago
  You need to attribute. So commercial projects that do not want to attribute are not permitted to use the code.
  - juped 5y ago
    this does not in any way prevent commercial use
    - renewiltord 5y ago
      Really? So if I want to include BSD code without attributing in my commercial software, I can distribute the binary? That’s rhetorical. I can’t do so legally without receiving a different license for the copyrighted code. The counter example to what you claim is trivial to construct.
      - trasz 5y ago
        Yes, you can, assuming we're talking about the modern BSD license. So, your point was?
        renewiltord 5y ago
        This is wrong. 3-clause BSD requires reproduction of copyright notice. You cannot distribute commercial derivatives of BSD-licensed code without including attribution. It’s literally clause two.

toast0 5y ago

The GPL may make commercial use infeasible, but the Descent public license has gems like: > IN NO EVENT SHALL THE END-USER USE THE COMPUTER CODE CONTAINED HEREIN FOR REVENUE-BEARING PURPOSES Which is still better than no source release. But it doesn't get your code out and used by other projects.