3 ms·

The typical path for software looks like this: Developer -> Distributor [-> Distributor ...] -> User The BSD license grants rights from the developer to the f

The typical path for software looks like this: Developer -> Distributor [-> Distributor ...] -> User The BSD license grants rights from the developer to the first distributor in the chain. Other distributors, and the end user, are completely dependent on that first distributor to pass on the rights he received. The GPL requires that certain fundamental software rights are passed down the chain. This ensures that a single ill-behaved distributor will not restrict the rights of the end user. As someone who builds and uses tools for developers, BSD is thus more useful to me, because it grants the maximum freedom to the people I target -- myself, and other developers to whom I distribute BSD-licensed tools. There is no need to pick a license to maximize your own rights -- by the nature of international copyright law, you already have all possible rights to your work. The difference is whether rights should be transmitted. Apparently you believe that some users do not deserve the same rights to their copies of your software as others. While this is a common belief, I feel it is unfortunate and ill-considered.

m_eiman 17y ago
Apparently you believe that some users do not deserve the same rights to their copies of your software as others. Well, they can still get the software directly from me - regardless of what Company A does to it. BSD won't guarantee that Company A doesn't do anything "bad" and apply restrictions to what I've created, but it does guarantee that anyone can get -my- software from -me-.
- omail 17y ago
  Except, company A's modification is a port to a platform with secret specifications. Neither you nor I have the time to reverse engineer it.
ubernostrum 17y ago
"Apparently you believe that some users do not deserve the same rights to their copies of your software as others." You do realize that if someone who gets a copy of my BSD-licensed software wants to lock it up and put it under horrific restrictions, people can still get a copy of it, under a permissive license, from me? And, really, that's how I prefer to solve that problem. Sure, somebody might build a derivative piece of software and not open it up, but I don't feel like it's my place to dictate to them how they have to license their own software. But then I don't really look at open-source license terms as a moral issue; the fact that I'm a license pragmatist should be pretty clear from my original reply.

m_eiman 17y ago

Apparently you believe that some users do not deserve the same rights to their copies of your software as others. Well, they can still get the software directly from me - regardless of what Company A does to it. BSD won't guarantee that Company A doesn't do anything "bad" and apply restrictions to what I've created, but it does guarantee that anyone can get -my- software from -me-.

omail 17y ago
Except, company A's modification is a port to a platform with secret specifications. Neither you nor I have the time to reverse engineer it.

ubernostrum 17y ago

"Apparently you believe that some users do not deserve the same rights to their copies of your software as others." You do realize that if someone who gets a copy of my BSD-licensed software wants to lock it up and put it under horrific restrictions, people can still get a copy of it, under a permissive license, from me? And, really, that's how I prefer to solve that problem. Sure, somebody might build a derivative piece of software and not open it up, but I don't feel like it's my place to dictate to them how they have to license their own software. But then I don't really look at open-source license terms as a moral issue; the fact that I'm a license pragmatist should be pretty clear from my original reply.