PathScale Gives FreeBSD, NetBSD A New C++ Runtime

[kraftman]

Example: You write program which uses library under GPL, then you are forced to release your program under GPL, that is freedom.

This makes the GPL a smart license. You are free to choose whatever license you like. People who choose bsd and complain when their code is included into some GPL or proprietary project are simply morons.

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.

[LightBit]

You FREELY chose to use that GPL library, which someone else wrote and licenced as GPL.

You can also FREELY chose to use proprietary library ...

[XorEaxEax]

It's because they PREFER closed source software and thus they use the 'shitty' license to support it.

If they preferred closed source they wouldn't be writing open source. The only thing I don't understand is how some BSD advocates can prefer closed source over GPL (unless that is what you meant), from a practical standpoint closed source is worse for BSD than GPL licenced code so I can only assume such preference is about licence politics/zelotry, not practicality.

Example: You write program which uses library under GPL, then you are forced to release your program under GPL, that is freedom.

You FREELY chose to use that GPL library, which someone else wrote and licenced as GPL.

[LightBit]

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.

[kraftman]

No.

(It's not like that deserves a more complicated answer.)

Yes. It seems you missed what some other people said before.

[dnebdal]

It's because they PREFER closed source software and thus they use the 'shitty' license to support it.

No.

(It's not like that deserves a more complicated answer.)

[kraftman]

I've often heard BSD advocates saying that there's no problem with their code being used in closed source projects because they don't LOSE anything since the original code is still free, and it's that argument which falls flat on it's face when they then start complaining about BSD code being used in GPL licenced projects.

It's because they PREFER closed source software and thus they use the 'shitty' license to support it.

[XorEaxEax]

More than that, there's a position that the BSD license doesn't actually permit "re-licensing" the source code per se. The idea is that you're free to compile it into a binary and apply your own terms to that, and you're free to incorporate it into a larger program and apply your own terms to that whole program, but you can't just strip the original copyright and license from the BSD source and pretend it never existed.

Certainly, but that's not the issue. The BSD licenced portion of the code doesn't change licence, only the modifications to that code are licenced differently. I've often heard BSD advocates saying that there's no problem with their code being used in closed source projects because they don't LOSE anything since the original code is still free, and it's that argument which falls flat on it's face when they then start complaining about BSD code being used in GPL licenced projects. The exact same holds true, the original code is still licenced under BSD, only changes made by the GPL programmers will be licenced under GPL. Just like any changes made by a proprietary company will be kept closed source.

[smitty3268]

Basically, one person doesn't respect the other person enough to follow the other's wishes. It's like people forcing their religion on other people.

The BSD is a fine license. But i will never understand why people somehow think it's perfectly fine for a company to take BSD code into a proprietary codebase but not OK for someone to stick it in a GPL codebase. In both cases the BSD code is no longer available to the original coder, but one is celebrated as the strength of the license while the other identical scenario is derided as freeloading and forcing religion.

The point of the BSD license is to allow others to do whatever they want with your code. Sticking it into a GPL licensed codebase is part of that freedom.

[Ex-Cyber]

It's already an open source license, so you're not liberating the code. GPLing the code creates a proprietary fork which would force the original project to use GPL code if they wanted merge changes back in, and if the original author wanted the code under the GPL, the coder would have used the GPL in the first place.

More than that, there's a position that the BSD license doesn't actually permit "re-licensing" the source code per se. The idea is that you're free to compile it into a binary and apply your own terms to that, and you're free to incorporate it into a larger program and apply your own terms to that whole program, but you can't just strip the original copyright and license from the BSD source and pretend it never existed. The relevant text in the license is:

Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

This gets a bit fuzzy if you think about it a lot, which I suppose was probably one of the motivations behind the WTFPL.