The important thing to realise about the GPL's freedom is that it is not so much "freedom for the developer" as preserving "freedom of the user". To keep softwa

The important thing to realise about the GPL's freedom is that it is not so much "freedom for the developer" as preserving "freedom of the user". To keep software in the ecosystem free and to allow any user to see the source code of a piece of software running on their computer. Of course I can see the value of both type of license and each has their place. In my lovely land of Linux/KDE/Firefox/GNU the GPL is fine for everything since you don't have to worry about pesky companies wanting to incorporate your end-user code into their products. However, for a library which you might want to be used by commercial game developers etc. a BSD-style license makes lot more sense as otherwise people will go elsewhere or implement it themselves. This is why a few years we switched the license of PolyVox (http://www.volumesoffun.com/polyvox-about/ http://www.volumesoffun.com/polyvox-about/) to be zlib rather than GPL.