4 ms·

Just venturing a guess - may be that libraries that link this would want the option of GPL whereas commercial/non-libre software might prefer BSD?

• loeg 4y ago
  GPL code can already link BSD libraries without an explicit GPL license option.
  • actionfromafar 4y ago
    Isn’t BSD flavour with advertisement clause + GPL problematic? Specifically that GPL requires no further hindrance to distribution.
    • loeg 4y ago
      Approximately no one uses the 4-clause BSD (the problematic one). The one Zstd uses has three clauses: https://github.com/facebook/zstd/blob/dev/LICENSE https://github.com/facebook/zstd/blob/dev/LICENSE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses#3-clause_license_(%22BSD_License_2.0%22,_%22Revised_BSD_License%22,_%22New_BSD_License%22,_or_%22Modified_BSD_License%22) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses#3-clause_license_...
      • johannes1234321 4y ago
        There are derivates of the 4 clause BSD, like PHP License, which bave some relevant users. Considering Facebook has some historic use of PHP things (while rewritten to Hack, but that uses some PHP libraries) pure GPL might cause issues for them. Still doesn't explain why pure BSD won't work for them, though
        • deleted 4y ago
          [deleted]
        • johannes1234321 4y ago
          In case somebody still reads this a theory: Maybe they want to get standard into GNU coreutils, so it natively works with tar etc. for that GPL may make things simpler politically.