Example: You write program which uses library under GPL, then you are forced to release your program under GPL, that is freedom.
I prefer weak (per file) copyleft licenses like CDDL, but it's uncompatible with GPL. So I have to chose 'shitty' license.
As far as you don't complain nobody says there's something wrong with your decision. While GPL is 'proprietary' for some bsd folks, bsd is shitty for me.I prefer weak (per file) copyleft licenses like CDDL, but it's uncompatible with GPL. So I have to chose 'shitty' license.
A caricature certainly, but the from the BSD dev's perspective you've got somebody who took your code and added extra conditions to it (so far, so similar to a closed source project) but then touts their code as being free when it's perfectly un-free from where Mr. BSD is sitting.
I'm still not sure why GPL is better in practice than closed source - the devs don't want to reverse engineer it, and if they did RE, how many people would believe that they didn't peek at the source code if they got stuck? How do you think the Linux devs would react to the BSD devs saying "we RE'd the linux kernel and now we have these new features!". I suspect that the lawyers would get involved and nobody wants that.
I should note that this is spectulation, I don't speak for all of them etc. etc.
BSD code used in a GPL project, but kept BSD: Happiness. Unicorns dancing under rainbows etc.
BSD code used in closed-source project: Eh, if I have to use it at some point maybe it'll be slightly better than it'd have been otherwise.
BSD code made GPL: Why? They could have used it anyway, so making it impossible to import their changes is just insulting.
On a side note, the companies using FreeBSD are fairly decent at contributing back - after all, it's less work if a change is added upstream.
Last edited by dnebdal; 05-26-2011 at 05:24 PM.