BSD vs GPL

I've been struggling over this for the last couple of years. I like the GPL in theory, but find myself agreeing with a lot of the points of the BSD license point of view. Which is the THE """"free"""" license?

I find the BSD license aligns more with a libertarian view, allowing the person to choose whether or not they want to use """"free"""" software/license.

I'm sure this subject's been beat to death, just wondering what other people think. And obviously there are other options like the MIT license.

Attached: open-source-library-system-software-free-is-just-the-tip-of-the-iceberg-8-728.jpg (728x546, 103K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/PaKIZ7gJlRU
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

do you care if people include your code into their proprietary product without releasing their changes to you? pick BSD. otherwise pick GPL.
>inb4 cuck license

er.. if you _dont_ care, pick BSD.
>inb4 drunk posting

Attached: 1537912663330.png (660x1428, 74K)

>GPL
I'd like to encourage others to open source their software
>BSD
I want to make it easy for others to use my software

youtu.be/PaKIZ7gJlRU

For me, it's the BSD license.

And the Linux kernel CoC violated everything Linus stood for.

I didn't really get sucked into that argument, so not sure if it was over exadurated or not. Same with when the FreeBSD CoC happened a while back. *hug* ;)

>encourage
The word is "enforce", as in, by law.

What did he stood for, (preferably in his own words)?

Rightly so. Proprietary software is spyware.

Sounds based, jews won't be defeated peacefully.

If only you knew.

I think they're referring to the meritocracy type enviornment. The quality of the code comes first, doesn't matter who it's from. Not saying it always works out this way becuase I've heard of groups of people playing favorites in kernel development, but I don't keep close to that subject/circle so can't tell you if it's true or not.

Both are free software licenses.
>I find the BSD license aligns more with a libertarian view
It does not.

If you don't accept the license, for example if you wish to take the software and make it proprietary, then you are free to not use the software.

GPL is why LInux beat BSD.

>If you don't accept the license
This only works if you're outside of the US. You can't use this defense in countries that respect copyright law.
The only projects I know of that do this openly come from Russia and China.

Most of the US projects that do this rely on obfuscation.

Please read my post again. You should not be making any illegal license violations, whether or not the software is free or proprietary. The projects that rely on obfuscation should have legal action taken against them.

It's not illegal, that was what I was pointing out.
It's only illegal inside of countries that respect copyright laws.

>The projects that rely on obfuscation should have legal action taken against them.
I'm stating the law, I'm not interested in your onions.

>Respecting the license of other people's code is onions
If you want Russia and China to respect copyright law then stop treating the law in your own country like a joke

It's simple: do you care about seeing the changes other people make to your program? Do you care if a company integrates your code into their own?

if it doesn't matter, BSD (well, I'd personally use the text of the MIT or ISC ones)
if it does matter to you, GPL (and if you don't actually care that much about "muh freedoms," nothing's stopping you from selling commercial licenses to your source like TightVNC does, assuming you have full copyright to the program and aren't using portions licensed to you via the GPL)

Man I can't stand this fag.

Attached: thisiswhatpeakautismlookslike.jpg (480x360, 10K)

BSD is BASED AND REDPILLED

What you think should happen, is nothing more than opinion just like the post you just made.

>If you want Russia and China to respect copyright law
I don't. If you want opinions, I don't think Copyright should be respected at all in regards to software.
It makes no sense for digital goods and serves to do nothing other than control people.

Stallman is a jew, so licensing as "free" software actually enables the jews.

Read this >if you wish to take the software and make it proprietary, then you are free to not use the software
It's literally the same kikery statement used by Apple and MS.

>can't afford it? don't use it
>wan't to modify it? don't use it
>violating my license? I'll take you to court
It's a proprietary copyright license masquerading as a freedom fighter.
>it's for your own benefit goy!

I agree but the world you and I live in unfortunately has copyright laws and realistically, the only alternative is that everyone will take matters into their own hands and obfuscate stuff even more than they already do.
>is nothing more than opinion just like the post you just made
BREAKING NEWS: Autistic basement-dwelling geek posts worthless opinion on internet forum before crying into cheetos

>the only way to fight fire is with fire!
What a stunted way of thinking.

>freedom means there are no laws and you can do anything you want anytime
Literally no, ancap pls go

Attached: 1415660470754.jpg (1200x1514, 394K)

>freedom means what the FSF tells me it means
Gno.

>which is THE free license?
0BSD. Anything else is restrictive is restricts your freedom to do whatever you want with the code.

Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.

Doesn't have any issues with public domain since it's just a incredibly permissive license, meaning everyone in the world can use it

The FSF uses a common definition of freedom, look it up.

Does that change what I said?
Does acceptance mean validity?

I don't think that way, but unfortunately the pro-copyright shills do, and they own the gubmint. You can ignore them and hope they go away, or you can do something about it.

>Does that change what I said?
Yes
>Does acceptance mean validity?
No

>Yes
How?
The FSF has redefined their edict multiple times. It doesn't matter which incarnation of faux-freedom they choose, the fact of the matter is that they choose it.
This is particularly a problem when you consider how many people use the "vX or later" text.

Just because some people agree with the term, does not make it any more valid than any other incarnation.
Regardless of the name, their principles are inherently controlling.
It's ironic for them to pretend like they care about freedom in the slightest, even under their own definitions.

It's also terrible for people to instantly jump to the conclusion that the lack of control over another human or entity is somehow automatically anarchy and not simply liberty.

I prefer the BSD license because I believe that information or anything "intellectual" cannot be "property." Information can be guarded or concealed, but it cannot be owned. The BSD license is more consistent with this belief.

What about the MIT license?

This.
It costs me nothing for you to make a copy of the software, and you're the one storing and maintaining it. It's your copy to do with what you want. I'll always have mine to do what I want with too.

Claiming you own derivatives is on par with patenting algorithms imo. Like you can own software just because you wrote it.
Just because it resembles English doesn't mean it's not still just math, which in itself is just concepts transcribed to something human readable. You don't invent or own math, you write it down and share it.

Is he a "downy"?

BSDcucks are the first to cry when they see their programs being sold as proprietary software

Attached: hurr.jpg (736x744, 114K)

There's like 8 levels of irony in this image. I don't know why people even post it.

>GNU/dad
always gets me

The "or later" text does not void the original license. If you don't agree with a later revision then you can always use the old version of the license as long as the software remains under those same "or later" terms. If it was a mandatory update then you could argue the FSF was trying to take control of these projects, but that isn't what's happening here.

Cerebral palsy

I find this hard to believe considering they chose the license. As your image implies, it seems to be GPL advocates that have a problem with BSD more than anyone else. It directly conflicts with their ideals.

I can't see BSD users complaining about a free meal ticket.

>And obviously there are other options like the MIT license.

I'm just not as familiar with it as I am with GPL or BSD licenses. GPL and BSD are the ones people generally argue over.

your custom license

They're functionally equivalent and equally as succinct.

MIT License
Copyright (c)

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
SOFTWARE.

ISC License (ISC)

Copyright

Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.

>The ISC license is a permissive free software license published by the Internet Software Consortium, nowadays called Internet Systems Consortium (ISC). It is functionally equivalent to the simplified BSD and MIT licenses, but without language deemed unnecessary following the Berne Convention.

Neet.

Also be careful of the difference between MIT expat and MIT X11.
X11 has this additional clause.
> Except as contained in this notice, the name(s) of the above copyright holders shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or other dealings in this Software without prior written authorization.

Unless you assign your copyright to the FSF (as they strongly encourage many projects not originally under the GNU umbrella), in which case they'll use their legal status as copyright holders to relicense the whole project under the newest GPL (with "or later") and not any of the older ones.

They even backported GPLv3 patches to old versions of GCC, then silently replaced pre-GPLv3 versions of GCC on the GNU download site with them. Unless you kept the old ones around or dig around in the git history, the GPLv2 versions just aren't there any more.

I generally use MIT for my personal projects, which is basically the same as BSD. But if I made something that I actually thought people might use, I might consider LGPL, "Gnu Lesser General Public License", since it's a pretty good compromise between permissive vs copyleft licenses.

LGPL basically says that if you make modifications to the actual code, then you have to release them under the same license, just like GPL. But, if you're making a proprietary product, then you're allowed to include the LGPL code as an external library, like a DLL. There are some specific restrictions, but that's the gist.

> They even backported GPLv3 patches to old versions of GCC, then silently replaced pre-GPLv3 versions of GCC on the GNU download site with them. Unless you kept the old ones around or dig around in the git history, the GPLv2 versions just aren't there any more.

Wait, if someone had the GPLv2 version, could they re-release it and it would stay under GPLv2 or since the FSF is the copyright holder they update it and everyones fucked?

Please delete this post, it puts the FSF and the GNU project in a bad light. You have to understand they had your freedom in mind when they were doing this.

Nah, if someone has the old source they can release. Same as all those projects on GitHub that are "fork of last open source release" of some proprietary project.

>Wait, if someone had the GPLv2 version, could they re-release it and it would stay under GPLv2 or since the FSF is the copyright holder they update it and everyones fucked?
Sure but what difference would it make? You're still not going to get any of the patches from after this decision was made.

GPL unless you like working for free.

You realize that you and everyone else has to give their work away under the GPL, right?
Why do you think companies like open source so much?

Then don't assign your copyright to them? They require copyright assignment if you want them to maintain your patch, which makes sense. You can still hack on it and maintain your own patches, fork the project if you want, no one is stopping you from doing this.

Also you do realize an organization using a non-copyleft license can also change the license if you assigned your copyrights to them, such as exactly what happened with the Apache Foundation? Updating licenses isn't a bad thing, they do it because the people funding these non-profit foundations asked for it.

If you really think the issues that the GPLv3 addresses are not actually real problems facing software freedom, there are better ways to push back against this than trying to fork an old version of GCC

Free as in freedom, not free as in price

Are you pretending to be retarded?

>If you really think the issues that the GPLv3 addresses are not actually real problems facing software freedom, there are better ways to push back against this than trying to fork an old version of GCC
Why are you jumping to such a hasty conclusion? I'm just pointing it out.

>Free as in freedom, not free as in price
Antisemitic jokes aside, who actually has a problem with working for freedom?

It's true though. By law you have to release your changes and nothing prevents others from selling those changes in their products.

This is how companies like Microsoft manage to profit off of things like Linux ABI compatibility without contributing anything to upstream GPL software.
I don't think I even have to point out Apple's use of GNU utilities that have been a staple of their product for years.

I seriously hope you're not that ignorant that you think releasing your software for free isn't somehow free work for others to profit off of.
Check most of the electronic appliances in your house, I bet things like your TV use unmodified GPL software.

I don't know how people let themselves get tricked like this.

GPL = Civilization
BSD = Anarchy

Choose wisely.

>spend time reverse engineering closed source software to determine it's using your GPL source
>find contact info, write letter demanding source
>after no response, write more and more strongly worded letters, cc'ing more and more people each time
>four months later, finally get a response
>it's a 100-character download link you can't find with a search engine
>download the zip file
>no git history, no sign of which version of your source it's based on
>entire project has been changed to Windows linebreaks and run through a source code formatter
>all C functions have been find-and-replaced with basic C++ STL interfaces and data structures
>after a few days getting the sources close enough to your original project to compare, you find the actual changes
>it changes a couple of memory addresses to match the bootloader of their shitty Chinese featurephone
>the code is baked into the ROM on the device, you can't compile your own and load it

Corporations can't write code for shit. Their changes are worthless, and adding 5000 words of legalese to your source so you can finagle modifications from them through judicial means is a waste of time. In the meantime your code can't be reused by other open source projects using BSD licenses or even other copyleft licenses incompatible with yours. Why not just release under a simple, clear, permissive license in the first place?

But it's FREE shit!

>In the meantime your code can't be reused by other open source projects using BSD licenses or even other copyleft licenses incompatible with yours
This is by far the worst part of the GPL.
It's like recreational media DRM, it only hurts the people it's supposed to protect.

Apple refusing to contribute back is one of many reasons why GPLv3 was created, notice how they don't update GNU packages anymore due to muh patents

> I bet things like your TV use unmodified GPL software.
If the hardware vendor is big enough they probably either
1) pay the maintainer for a support contract
2) employ the maintainer
3) donate to the foundation that does
For the smaller companies, it's good that they don't have to pay, they probably couldn't afford to anyway.

>Microsoft manage to profit off of things like Linux ABI compatibility without contributing anything to upstream GPL software.
Does anyone know if this is technically (and ironically) illegal now due to the Oracle v. Google ruling?

I think it's somewhat bad form for maintainers to be carrying out enforcement like that, the point is for the user to have freedom. They are the ones who need to be able to ask the vendor for source code, it doesn't help you as a maintainer if you don't even own the device it runs on.

It hurts end users too.
>consumer product needs a software library
>a good implementation exists under the GPL
>the company can't legally use it
>they either adopt an inferior implementation or write their own
I don't see how restricting access like this helps anyone. The common argument is that "you don't have to use it".
In what world does it make sense to write software that you don't intend to be used. How is that not just a waste of time. It's borderline masturbatory.
>here's my software I wrote, you can look but not touch
Why?

Why are you dodging the point? It's still free work and no different than any other OSS license in this case.
To claim that the GPL isn't working for free is a bold faced lie.

As for the first half, intentionally fragmenting and complicating license terms doesn't seem like it benefits anyone. It only prevents more people from using the software. Who does that serve?

Wait, are you saying if a user takes the steps in instead of a maintainer, it'll lead to a happier ending?

>Intentionally fragmenting
>hurts the people it's supposed to protect

I'm sorry but there is no good solution for this. There will never be a "one size fits all" copyleft license that is compatible with everything. If you want copyleft, or rather, you NEED copyleft to protect yourself from abuse by proprietary developers, then you still have to deal with the actual real legal issues that come up. I wish there was a solution to this but with copyright law the way it is, there isn't. You can blame the proprietary developers for that.

In that case no because if the device is "tivoized" then they are still hosed. But if they were able to figure out a way to reflash the device, and a user wanted to get the code, get together with some other users, make some changes, and eventually fix up a patch that was usable for the maintainer, then that would be a better outcome.

This is solved by assigning copyright to the FSF. They can relicense your software if a new and improved license comes out.

>assigning copyright to the FSF

Attached: 1475219624986.gif (270x180, 1.27M)

>There will never be a "one size fits all" copyleft license that is compatible with everything
Dude multiple liberal licenses have existed for years.
Placing the onus on to the person that derives the work rather than the original author.
This is a clearcut solution to the problem.

There's no way to misinterpret this, the GPL is an intentional deviation from this. It adds restrictive clauses that prevent it from being a one-size-fits-all. They made that choice, it's not a coincidence.

The fact that you can add your own stipulations on top of the existing license is the reason this works. (dual license)
Ironically people try to shoehorn the GPL into everything as if it's going to work for all cases, when it prevents any flexibility whatsoever.

By nature it is nothing other than a copyright license that imposes its restrictions on not only its users, but obviously to the community as a whole by intentionally conflicting and pretending like there is a choice in the matter.
When in reality the choice boils down to what people are even willing to admit.
Use it under my special conditions or don't.
Just like a proprietary license.

There is literally nothing wrong with assigning copyright to the FSF.

>copyright
found the wrong

Other than the fact that they'd GPL it (and relicense it to a shittier license when GPLv4 comes out)

>GPL is literally EEE
oh my god

Where? I don't see it.

This is exactly what should happen. You just made a mistake by using the word "shittier" instead of "better".

And I'm saying the only way copyleft can work is with those extra clauses. They are designed to ensure the users always have freedom. If you're using a copyleft license then it's assumed that you need its benefits that non-copyleft licenses don't provide. Saying "you can solve the problem of license incompatibilities by gutting your license" is throwing the baby out with the bath water. If your company either can't afford to to comply with that or doesn't want to, they should seriously think about why they need to remove the user's freedom in such a way.

>Just like any copyright license including nonfree, free copyleft, and free non-copyleft
Fixed. The whole point of licensing and copyright is special conditions. You could public domain it, but even that imposes a set of special conditions. Also, if the idea of special conditions bother you, you might consider not being in a technical field anymore, because it's special conditions all the way down.

If you are a community member then your feedback is always welcome on what should go into any future licenses. Meme suggestions such as "it should be BSD license but with a swastika at the end" will be ignored.

>This is exactly what should happen
We clearly have some fundamentally different views here, don't pretend I made a mistake.

>if you don't like it you can suggest a change
>unless it's something I don't like
I'll just stick to the ISC license, thanks.

If you have no need for copyleft then ISC license is a fine license.

>I can't believe I have to actually have a conversation with someone and avoid saying things they don't like if I want them to do something!
You are free to write your own license, you can't force other people to put stuff in theirs. However many free software licenses are made based on community feedback from people who actually use the license. If you don't use the license and you seem to take an interest in disparaging the community then why do you care?

>If you're using a copyleft license then it's assumed that you need its benefits that non-copyleft licenses don't
This is not implied. It's imposed by the author regardless of your own ideals.
Ironically, you're only considering 1 level deep while the GPL is systemic. It persists through derivatives and maintainers.
The opinions and ideals of the community are intentionally disregarded, placing power of choice on a single entity rather than each individual.
It's textbook tyranny.

Look at your own post.
>If your company either can't afford to to comply with that or doesn't want to, they should seriously think about why they need to remove the user's freedom in such a way.

There's no actual reason or basis for this other than the authors own personal opinion. Is that really justifiable? Is it really okay to opress some people just because you and your organizations don't personally agree with them?
Why hold that power instead of leaving it in the hands of the people. Why is there a necessity to ensure specific behavior is followed by law?
This serves no actual purpose other than to push personal ideologies.
This is anything but free, or helpful.

>you might consider not being in a technical field anymore, because it's special conditions all the way down.
What manner of conflation is this?
I doubt your sincerity. To lump together generic conditions with legal clauses. Preposterous.

Use the apache license
>prevents patent trolling
>no license lock-in

>If you don't use the license and you seem to take an interest in disparaging the community then why do you care?
Because how other people license their projects affects me. Isn't that the whole point of the GPL? How are you blind to this?

>to open source their software
You mean to make their software free.

>placing power of choice on a single entity rather than each individual.
>Textbook tyranny
Yes, you describe copyright perfectly. Unfortunately we are stuck with it, and so some of us are forced to use copyleft to work around other people abusing the system.
>Is it really okay to oppress some people just because you and your organizations don't personally agree with them?
This is classic blackmail which is to claim that if someone doesn't let you abuse someone else (in this case, the users of the software) then you are the one suffering abuse and torment. Do not fall for this.

You can take that up with proprietary developers, the only reason copyleft is needed is because they poisoned the well.

>the only reason copyleft is needed
But it's not.

>Unfortunately we are stuck with it
This is not a defense. When you intentionally choose to use copyright while knowing the problems of it, you are forcing it on others. We are "stuck" with it because you choose to use it. How is this not obvious? It's a choice, it's not innate.

>forced
Poppycock. Only the users are forced, the author makes the choice willingly and preemptively.

>This is classic blackmail which is to claim that if someone doesn't let you abuse someone else (in this case, the users of the software) then you are the one suffering abuse and torment. Do not fall for this.
I want you to consider the implications I mentioned already, how it is the users who suffer most at the legal behest of the GPL and the authors who choose it.

The GPL in itself is abusive and oppressive. When you choose to use the GPL you choose selective oppression by default.
Without the GPL, neither abuse nor oppression is implied.
It's just assumed that it will happen according to GPL advocates. This is not a reasonable basis, it's nothing more than speculation, used to manipulate people.
They only have to trick you once and your software will harm each successive fork inherently.
With liberal licenses, it's a case by case basis, and never harmful by default.

>It's just assumed that it will happen according to GPL advocates. This is not a reasonable basis, it's nothing more than speculation, used to manipulate people.
Reminder this is how gun grabbers are currently trying to erode American freedom.
>guns have the potential to be bad, thus they should be explicitly forbidden
Is this reasonable?

>code-devs have the potential to opress the user, thus they should be explicity forbidden from using other copyrights

Is this reasonable?

I would say no.
It's not fair of me to make a choice for someone else and deny them such freedoms.
Choosing a copyright for someone else is not fair to them.
The GPL is based on the one thing it's supposed to prevent and forbids you from changing this unless you are the original "owner".
Liberal licenses afford you the ability to use whatever copyright clauses you wish as your copy is your own.

The only exception is the global one shared by all OSS licenses I know of, attribution.

>The only exception is the global one shared by all OSS licenses I know of, attribution.
And since the beginning of time, nobody seems to have a problem with this.
Even before modern law we still had attribution.

>the sieve of Eratosthenes
>Eulers conjecture
etc.

Go tell that to all the projects using copyleft licenses

>We are "stuck" with it because you choose to use it
False, in the US at least. You don't choose to use it, your works are automatically copyrighted. You can choose to give up the copyrights, or you can choose not to enforce them, but those are different from choosing not to use copyright law.

>the author makes the choice willingly and preemptively.
Only on behalf of the users.

>I want you to consider the implications I mentioned already
The implication was nonsense because the users are always going to be free to fork it, change it, etc. The power that was placed in a single entity was placed there by copyright law, not by the GPL. Again I would like this to be different, but we are stuck with it.

>It's just assumed that it will happen according to GPL advocates. This is not a reasonable basis, it's nothing more than speculation, used to manipulate people.
Ask yourself, are you really okay with what proprietary licenses are doing right now? And even if you are, do you really think there aren't tons of examples of developers violating copyleft licenses out there in order to do something abusive?

Affording someone else the ability to use additional copyright clauses is not freedom. In many cases it does the opposite.

I actually do have a problem with that. We are reaching the point where there are too many humans and too much information on the planet for attribution to be meaningful in a lot of cases.
t. asshole who intentionally shitposts on an anonymous website.

Go tell that to all the projects using copyleft licenses
And while I'm at it I'll go tell all the flat Earthers that the earth is actually an oblate spheroid, because that'll totally work.

>Only on behalf of the users.
Hence power over choice.
This is indefensible in my opinion and likely the crux of our disagreement.
My argument being that you simply cannot know and/or assert what is right for someone else, especially in advance.
That is their choice to make and/or change on their own, in time or never.

Regardless, I believe we've discussed this at sufficient length for the benefit of the OP and other readers to come to their own conclusions. No matter what that conclusion may be.

I need to resign but I appreciate your patience and willingness to discuss the topic with me in a graceful manner.

>Regardless, I believe we've discussed this at sufficient length for the benefit of the OP and other readers to come to their own conclusions.

OP here, yeah I appreciate everyone's discussions, I learned a lot. I still think there is a place for both licenses depending on the developers intentions, but overall prefer the BSD/ISC for most applications.

This thread ended up more civil than I thought it would.

Attached: smile_lain.png (709x720, 247K)

Look into the MPL it's a nice compromise and by far my favourite open source licence.

Why do you claim to be in support of free and open source software but at the same time bury your head in the sand, ignore the abuses proprietary developers do and compare those who bear the suffering to anti-science conspiracy theorists? Honest question.

>My argument being that you simply cannot know and/or assert what is right for someone else, especially in advance.
This is correct, which is why copyleft seeks to address that by giving the user freedom to decide what is right for themselves.

That's fine, copyleft is mostly useful for large programs with a lot of contributors. Most free software projects don't fit that description.

>Why do you claim to be in support of free and open source software
Where did I make this claim?