2 ms·

I'm so relieved to find the top comment here is about the licence. The trend towards MIT-style licences and away from the GPL is a worrying one. I don't unders

I'm so relieved to find the top comment here is about the licence. The trend towards MIT-style licences and away from the GPL is a worrying one. I don't understand the problem people have with the GPL. The GPL is there to ensure free software stays free forever. In a world with copyright this is the only way to do it. Permissive licences and public domain do not work. Companies like Microsoft hate the GPL. This alone should tell you that you, an individual enthusiast, should probably love it.

tcmart14 3y ago
It depends, like all things. I am fine with the GPL, but there are ways it hinders open source. A primary example, Linux can benefit from BSD and MIT licensed code, but it doesn't go the other way. FreeBSD can not benefit from GPL code. At least on the BSD side of things, that is why the GPL is disliked. As an example, FreeBSD developers can write a filesystem with the BSD license and Linux can sort yoink that code out of the code tree and use it (supposing nothing special needs to be done with interfaces and such). But the reverse isn't true. If Linux developers write a new FS in the linux kernel and throw a GPL on it, FreeBSD can't utilize that code.
- goodpoint 3y ago
  No, FreeBSD can very much benefit from GPL code. The choose not to use it.