> And I prefer my software to remain open no matter who works on it or distributes it. So, I use GPL.
BSD license accomplishes that just fine. BSD licensed code has been taken, extended, modified and used in proprietary products for decades, and yet the original contribution remains open.
I think that what you object to is that someone can take your code and make money using it in a closed source project, perhaps modifying it in the process. If that makes you unhappy then GPL will serve your desires better.
But saying a BSD license won't keep your code open is not true. It may seem like a nit, but it's one that matters.
>> And I prefer my software to remain open no matter who works on it or distributes it. So, I use GPL.
> BSD license accomplishes that just fine. BSD licensed code has been taken, extended, modified and used in proprietary products for decades, and yet the original contribution remains open.
But the modifications might not do, which is what GPL proponents care about. To me, the GPL is like saying "I'll share with you, if you share (your changes) with me".
This is not to say that GPL is better than BSD, or that either is better that a proprietory license; they're each designed to do different things. One might as well argue about whether a car a plane or a boat is the best form of transport.
> But the modifications might not do, which is what GPL proponents care about. To me, the GPL is like saying "I'll share with you, if you share (your changes) with me".
Yes, that's correct. It's not about better or worse at all. It's about a license that fits what you want, as a developer.
Sometimes it varies by project! For instance, a developer who normally uses GPL may choose BSD for a reference implementation of a client program using their API, specifically because commercial products could incorporate the code.
It depends on how you define "open". For Stallman, one of the main goals of free software is the ability to get into your software and be able to fix bugs and port it to other platforms -- it all started with RMS getting stuck with a proprietary printer driver.
All that BSD code that's been taken, extended, modified and used in proprietary products is no longer open. You can't get into OS X and fix bugs or port it to another platform. So even if the original code is still open, other distributions of that same code are not.
You are correct: the original code (and ongoing work based on it) is still open, and Apple, et al, versions are not.
This is fine. First and most importantly, because the desire to share code with BSD comes with no strings attached. It's just the desire to share. You don't have to have the same beliefs and priorities as I do in order to use my code. I believe in freedom enough to give you all the freedoms to do as you like with my code, and you don't have to behave in ways I see as good.
Secondly, if Apple were unable to use BSD code then what would happen? They would go completely proprietary, that's what. For them the alternative is not between BSD and GPL! Would the user be better served, or worse? As it stands, Apple contributes some things back to open/free projects, and a big part of that is due to their ties to BSD code.
Thirdly, with OS X as it is, or if Apple had not taken BSD code, or Apple did not even exist, would a user be more able or less able to run FreeBSD? No. Or GNU/Linux? Again, no.
Stallman and the FSF think that they're making a difference with licenses. But I think the truth may be that it's not the license that's really the movement. The movement is collaboration on a global scale and sharing code and making cool things for everyone to use. The licenses do not drive this. In the end we have to make sure that licenses serve our purpose rather than the other way around.
But not for RMS since it doesn't address the founding concern of the FSF! You sort of glossed over that. If you write BSD code, and it gets put into OS X, your ability to tinker with your own code in that context is gone.
I don't think you can clearly claim one license here is more free than the other -- they're both securing different kinds of freedom.
>But not for RMS since it doesn't address the founding concern of the FSF! You sort of glossed over that. If you write BSD code, and it gets put into OS X, your ability to tinker with your own code in that context is gone.
Well, yes, but no.
Secondly, if Apple were unable to use BSD code then what would happen? They would go completely proprietary, that's what.
The assumption is that we would end up with a completely closed-source printer driver that couldn't be hacked, rather than a mostly closed-source printer driver that couldn't be hacked. Improvement?
If I give away my code I do not demand that others let me poke at what they make with it, and I don't demand that they let their users poke at it. I still have my own code. This is fine with me. Nothing, absolutely nothing that Apple does with my code diminishes what I or anyone else can do with my code. When I share my code, I really share it for whatever purpose and to anyone. This is giving the fullest amount of freedom to any and every recipient of my code. Any possible restrictions I would place on them could only make it less free.
I understand that it's not fine with RMS and the FSF. And that's ok, because that's their point of view and plenty of other people feel the same way, and there should be a license for such people to use.
I understand that my views are not in line with the founding concerns of the FSF. But I never claimed they were. This is the very problem. The FSF has confused a generation of hackers into thinking that Freedom is the FSF and that the FSF is Freedom. They're not different kinds of freedom. The FSF promotes guaranteeing certain rights of anyone using software, where BSD is about freedom. You can believe in what the FSF is trying to do, and you can use the GPL to help get there! That's ok. It just bugs me about the "free" thing because it's not so true as the FSF would like you to think.
Actually, it doesn't matter what license you use -- you'll always have your own code.
> Any possible restrictions I would place on them could only make it less free.
One person's restriction is another person's allowance. The GPL gives end users and developers a number of rights that they don't normally get with copyrighted works. BSD doesn't change the normal copyright rights of end users at all. So for some users in some situations, the GPL is more free than copyright, and by extension, the BSD license as well.
During the Unix Wars, the industry lost about a decade of progress on BSD and SysV, entombed in proprietary forks owned by failing vendors. I don't believe it was a coincidence that a rough GPL kernel built on the GNU tools quickly surpassed the others, because all the work became part of a commons that reliably benefits all its users.
> give you all the freedoms to do as you like with my code
The industry has a bad habit of leaving end users at our mercy. I feel they deserve a place in that sentence, and that's why my donated work only goes to GPL projects.
That doesn't stop people from buying OSX or Windows, and you're saying it as if OSX couldn't have happened if it wasn't for the freebies they've incorporated.
Funny thing the Linux kernel came from a man that doesn't even buy RMS's propaganda, and that used GPL just because he was looking for some ROI.
BSD license accomplishes that just fine. BSD licensed code has been taken, extended, modified and used in proprietary products for decades, and yet the original contribution remains open.
I think that what you object to is that someone can take your code and make money using it in a closed source project, perhaps modifying it in the process. If that makes you unhappy then GPL will serve your desires better.
But saying a BSD license won't keep your code open is not true. It may seem like a nit, but it's one that matters.