I think the main point is really that the bsd license let's anyone including commercial developers use and contribute to your project. Gpl largely restricts your project to educational use. Your main contributors are likely weekend hobbyists.
The only thing software is good for is to make it proprietary and prevent people from sharing or modifying it. otherwise it useless for anything beyond weekend hobbyists. /sarcasm
Seriously, why do some people have such a hard time with this. The license prevents you from exploiting people with software you did not create. Is that such a big problem for you that you got to complain on HN about it?
I use software everyday without needing to exploit someone else in order to find them useful. I don't need to take anything away from someone else in order to be happy. Why can't you?
Reread my comment. There is nothing about BSD exploiting people. If that doesn't help, have someone read it aloud for you.
If your only wish is to release source code, then neither GPL or BSD will ever prevent you from doing so. Take GPL, or BSD, or a combination of them two. Modify if you wish. Release code and everyone is happy. Your own contribution can be of either license, and you have freedom to choose as you like.
However, your wishes are not to write and release source code, but to take someone else software and add proprietary license to it in order to prevent others from sharing or modifying the program. If your goal was only to write and release source code, we would not have this conversation.
It is also why you are complain on HN about it. It is so lucrative idea to restrict sharing and modification of a program, that people will say and do anything they can in order to do so. That is the goal when saying "don't use gpl, use bsd".
I say, use either. I can use code under either because I don't intend to prevent anyone from sharing or modifying the program.
I write and release open source code. I also write and release closed source code. Gpl takes that choice away. Us bsd developers use this license so we can work together to improve our individual end projects through sharing our knowledge and time with each other. I am very regularly contributing to open source projects that I use. For the benefit of other developers and for the benefit of myself (its more convenient for a bug fix or new feature to be pushed upstream so I don't have to recode my changes)
If you write and release open source code, the license will have no impact on your ability to do so. You can write and release your contributions as BSD, and include others BSD or GPL licensed code. You can write and release your contributions as GPL, and include others BSD and GPL licensed code. If your intention is to release source code and share your knowledge and time with others, the license is not going to effect you.
If your intention is add restrictions on other peoples work, then you are taking away the choice from others who want to read and modify the work. This won't benefit other developers, nor will it share knowledge or contribute to developers projects. Making it closed source closes any sharing, modification and redistributing of the work.
You demand to have the choice to take away choices from people. I choose to have the choice to take away the choice of taking away choices from others. That is my choice, and you are not allowed to restricting me from having it.
If you don't take away the choice, I won't either. My usage of GPL is only needed for as long others want to make proprietary software and remove choices from people.
Your mistaken. Gpl restrictions prevent me from using it in bsd projects. Bsd code can be used in gpl projects. But gpl restrictions prevent the other way around.
7 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 29.1 ms ] threadSeriously, why do some people have such a hard time with this. The license prevents you from exploiting people with software you did not create. Is that such a big problem for you that you got to complain on HN about it?
I use software everyday without needing to exploit someone else in order to find them useful. I don't need to take anything away from someone else in order to be happy. Why can't you?
If your only wish is to release source code, then neither GPL or BSD will ever prevent you from doing so. Take GPL, or BSD, or a combination of them two. Modify if you wish. Release code and everyone is happy. Your own contribution can be of either license, and you have freedom to choose as you like.
However, your wishes are not to write and release source code, but to take someone else software and add proprietary license to it in order to prevent others from sharing or modifying the program. If your goal was only to write and release source code, we would not have this conversation.
It is also why you are complain on HN about it. It is so lucrative idea to restrict sharing and modification of a program, that people will say and do anything they can in order to do so. That is the goal when saying "don't use gpl, use bsd".
I say, use either. I can use code under either because I don't intend to prevent anyone from sharing or modifying the program.
If your intention is add restrictions on other peoples work, then you are taking away the choice from others who want to read and modify the work. This won't benefit other developers, nor will it share knowledge or contribute to developers projects. Making it closed source closes any sharing, modification and redistributing of the work.
You demand to have the choice to take away choices from people. I choose to have the choice to take away the choice of taking away choices from others. That is my choice, and you are not allowed to restricting me from having it.
If you don't take away the choice, I won't either. My usage of GPL is only needed for as long others want to make proprietary software and remove choices from people.