If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
I expect Apple will eventually slap a draconian EULA on the compiler suite (think "Can only compile under OS X on Apple-made hardware") and charge an exorbitant amount for it. Plus, they'll make key components of the suite proprietary so that the open source version is worthless by iself.
I expect you should get back to making tinfoil hats.
Nope, it's called a free choice. It's funny you're calling this slavery while Apple is forcing its developers to not touch the GPL3.
BS, utilizing a BSD license you serve nobody but yourself. If I choose to slap a piece of code out there that everybody can use then all the better. That is my choice and allows others that may not share my same views to still benefit from my code.
Bull. No matter if you want this or not you serve people and groups I mentioned. If you choose GPL you serve only GPL projects and community.
I still don't see the issue with that. My code remains free for everyone to use. It just means that I'm not saying "You can only use my code if you have th same set of blinders on". GPL in my eyes is no better then any other license that prohibits "true" free use of the code.
Other people see many issues. Those who don't want to support their competitors are smart people and use GPL. Others, who choose the BSD are rather not Apple or MS competitors (because their choice to use such license would be simply stupid, won't allow them to compete; maybe only in areas which aren't interesting for MS or Apple).
You are is essence enslaving everybody that would want to use that code.
Bull, he has to agree with the license, so he has a free choice. If he agreed he must follow rules. Didn't someone mentioned Apple does something similar?
Hey I was the one that got hammered on by mentioning that a person is not limited to the GPL universe.
You said this like this is something bad
I wasn't the one that started "OMG the sky falls down if you use a BSD license.". My personal code carries no license at all. It's all PD.
You was the one who started "OMG the sky falls down if you use a GPL license, because you're limited to the GPL universe". As far we were only talking what the BSD license allow other to do and it allows you, me, companies to do what we/they want, so what's the problem? Saying what the BSD license is and what it allows to do with the code is politically incorrect or something? Apple wants people to be blind, choose the BSD license and think it gives them freedom and thus serve Apple? Why some people always have problems when someone does mention what the BSD license allows you to do? They don't like the truth or something?
Unfortunately, there is a reason that many GPLed projects are flourishing and many of the BSD licensed ones are not. If you ponder for a moment why that might be, you might understand things better. You might not wholly agree with the tenets, but there IS something to it all.
And that reason you're beating around the bush about is this: if you have the intention of legally (until licensing laws are abolished) allowing others to use your code, most developers would rather say, "Hey, I'm contributing MY code for YOU to use, so I would like to legally make you contribute YOUR code for ME to use in return as thanks for doing so!" It's basically like a software bounty, except instead of receiving money for it later on, you receive more time and code by others who wanted to build on your project. You could say the GPL is more selfish basically because it's more restrictive, but since the restriction enforces/encourages/demands freedom for others, in that way it is the opposite.
What's more fun though is trying to speculate on whether or not software would be further along than it is today had there never been any controlling laws to begin with. I believe it would be, since even if there were more attempts at keeping code closed, leaks of that code would bust everything open and the amount of source code circulating throughout the public would be much more advanced as everything could much more easily be built upon. Money would be generated purely by services and bounties (paid development sprints), what I believe will eventually be the future and most likely have to take place before it is finally realized that licensing laws deprive everyone of a better quality of life due to the needless wasteful money spent in courtrooms that it causes. At least until money itself is abolished.
The BSD license does allow more freedom, the freedom to not be a "slave" by being forced to keep things open.
More freedom to developers and companies, but doesn't guarantee code will remain free as in freedom.
And that reason you're beating around the bush about is this: if you have the intention of legally (until licensing laws are abolished) allowing others to use your code, most developers would rather say, "Hey, I'm contributing MY code for YOU to use, so I would like to legally make you contribute YOUR code for ME to use in return as thanks for doing so!"
Yeah! I'm giving you my code MS and Apple, my dear, your so good and thankful, could you give me something back? Wait, but I gave you my code, my time, my skills for free! Damn you, damn you both! Oh, I should do better next time, I promise I will serve you better!
It's basically like a software bounty, except instead of receiving money for it later on, you receive more time and code by others who wanted to build on your project.
In the GPL case always when they share your code. In the BSD case, maybe, if they wish, if you're a good servant etc.
You could say the GPL is more selfish basically because it's more restrictive, but since the restriction enforces/encourages/demands freedom for others, in that way it is the opposite.
A bull. What have far more contributors? Linux or *BSD?