6 ms·

You can't distribute someone else's GPL code in a way that allows other people to redistribure it with more restrictions. That's a big deal if you want to mix G

by eurleif 13y ago

You can't distribute someone else's GPL code in a way that allows other people to redistribure it with more restrictions. That's a big deal if you want to mix GPL code with your BSD-licensed project, even if you don't personally touch any non-free software.

dllthomas 13y ago
Hm, you can mix GPL code with your previously BSD-licensed project, and release the result under the GPL. However, I'll grant that that's strictly an exception there as I worded things. The only thing that could be done with the hypothetically-still-bsd combined work that couldn't be done with the perfectly allowed GPL combined work is to add more restrictions, though, so I think my general point still stands. That said, not all restrictions are equally problematic - an obvious brokenness would be wanting to mix original-BSD-license code and GPL code; both licenses purportedly free (says even the FSF), but the 4 clause BSD code adds a restriction regarding advertising materials mentioning UC Berkeley.
- eurleif 13y ago
  >The only thing that could be done with the hypothetically-still-bsd combined work that couldn't be done with the perfectly allowed GPL combined work is to add more restrictions, though, so I think my general point still stands. That's true, but if I'm a person whose only goal in life is to maximize free software, I may still be rationally motivated to license my project BSD instead of GPL. A BSD-licensed project can sometimes attract more users. Of course, that is because some of them will use it in their own non-free projects; but in many cases, their project would have been non-free anyway, and they would have just used someone else's code instead of mine, or written their own. If they use my project, it makes my project's ecosystem stronger, which is good for free software.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    One can certainly make that case, at which point it largely amounts to a factual question and I don't have the data to answer it. "If they use my project, it makes my project's ecosystem stronger, which is good for free software." Maybe. If they run with your code and build a proprietary fork with a few features on you, and users migrate over, your project's ecosystem may be weaker despite the code being used by more people, and it would be bad for free software. It's hard to say.

by eurleif 13y ago

dllthomas 13y ago

Hm, you can mix GPL code with your previously BSD-licensed project, and release the result under the GPL. However, I'll grant that that's strictly an exception there as I worded things. The only thing that could be done with the hypothetically-still-bsd combined work that couldn't be done with the perfectly allowed GPL combined work is to add more restrictions, though, so I think my general point still stands. That said, not all restrictions are equally problematic - an obvious brokenness would be wanting to mix original-BSD-license code and GPL code; both licenses purportedly free (says even the FSF), but the 4 clause BSD code adds a restriction regarding advertising materials mentioning UC Berkeley.

eurleif 13y ago
>The only thing that could be done with the hypothetically-still-bsd combined work that couldn't be done with the perfectly allowed GPL combined work is to add more restrictions, though, so I think my general point still stands. That's true, but if I'm a person whose only goal in life is to maximize free software, I may still be rationally motivated to license my project BSD instead of GPL. A BSD-licensed project can sometimes attract more users. Of course, that is because some of them will use it in their own non-free projects; but in many cases, their project would have been non-free anyway, and they would have just used someone else's code instead of mine, or written their own. If they use my project, it makes my project's ecosystem stronger, which is good for free software.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  One can certainly make that case, at which point it largely amounts to a factual question and I don't have the data to answer it. "If they use my project, it makes my project's ecosystem stronger, which is good for free software." Maybe. If they run with your code and build a proprietary fork with a few features on you, and users migrate over, your project's ecosystem may be weaker despite the code being used by more people, and it would be bad for free software. It's hard to say.