GPL is restrictive and won't let me do whatever I want with source code

>GPL is restrictive and won't let me do whatever I want with source code.
>BSD is permissive and let's me do whatever I want with source code.

Which is more free as in freedom?

Attached: wat.jpg (300x300, 11K)

>Constitution doesn't let me do whatever I want with people
>Anarchy lets me enslave children

Which is more free as in freedom?

Enslaving children violates children's freedom, just as GPL violates users freedom

Attached: taki wygląd jest fanów stallmana jebanych debili.jpg (612x556, 127K)

I always use something like BSD or MIT but I kind of understand the logic behind GPL.

i value the BSD license too but GPL license ensures that your work will pretty much only be used to further open source causes rather than just be forked into a proprietary product that is then "embrace, extend, extenguish"ed

BSD tries to be a cancer that spreads, when everyone uses free software the most substantial difference between GPL and BSD vanishes, that is the aim of the GPL license.

BSD is the only free license software, lad.

GPL is Marxist "free" ie freedom by forced equality. That's why corporations took so long to warm to Linux, and even so largely skipped the GNU bits / manipulated the system far and wide.

Whereas with BSD they just learned what they needed from the code and built it from there.

GPL is free for those who also love freedom
BSD is free for those who love freedom as well as those who don't
Technically, BSD is more free, but morally GPL is the right choice. With BSD proprietary software can use your free code to enslave its users, nullifying your efforts.

BSD is freedom. GPL is an ideology against intellectual and private property

Attached: 1392587450843.png (1069x1081, 267K)

If you are a normal user then the license doesn't matter. It doesn't matter even if you're a developer, that is, as long as you're making an open source program. You ARE making it open source, right? It should only matter if you're some kind of imperialist that wants everything except for your programs to be free.

Attached: Gnomed.jpg (331x345, 63K)

>Which is more free as in freedom?
Ask a million people and get a million answers, everyone will tell you different thinks depending on how they interpret freedom and respecting other's freedoms. For me as a user both respect me. As a developer though the choice is different. For example if i was developing a piece of software that I planned to make closed source for X reason and for Y reason I need to statically build all the libraries then I would prefer non copyleft libraries. If on the other hand I was developing a small piece of software or script that I want to open source and share then I would probably choose a small, simple, non copyleft license, like BSD or MIT. If on the other hand I wanted to make a piece of software and I want to make a living developing that software, but also want it to be open source then I would choose GPL or maybe even AGPL. and sell non copyleft licenses to companies like QT does. But you can also earn money developing open source software under non copyleft license. It really just depends on you creativity to come up with a business model.

GPL ensures freedom will be retained. BSD allows limiting of freedom. GPL is freedom, BSD is anti-freedom.

>freedom doesn't matter

BSD

In both ways they are stealing your code, no one cares for your shitty license faggots.

Attached: bsd dad.jpg (1200x1500, 309K)

Neither, use the Creative Commons Licnese
>hey this is my shit bro but like you can whatever with it man idgaf
versus
>REEEEEEEE MY CODE MY CODE GET YOUR HANDS OF OFF IT AAAAAAAAAAH

>b-but i really really REALLY want to take things given to me for free and make them unfree!
Go home Microsoft

Gold!

GPL = I love you as long as you play by my rules.
BSD = I love you no matter what.

apache

CC0

>whatever I want
This means to get free code and clouse source. Give it up Jamal

GPL ensures the freedom of users by enslaving the programmers

>Oh yes! Take my code that I worked so hard on daddy! I don't deserve to keep it!

It's not about your freedom, it's about the code's freedom. That is, which one leads to more code being freely available to everyone.

Attached: bsd is shit.png (1200x1500, 1.59M)

>implying anyone cares whether I make my open-source shitware BSD or GPL licensed

>Which is more free as in freedom?
No software license.

Based public domain

It's only restriction is that you can't impose restrictions. So GPL is more free.

Based and redpilled

Attached: 1559924690469.png (334x346, 127K)

>MIT (((permissive))) liicence forces you to include the copyright notice when software is distributed
absolutely non-free, public domain is the only free software.

Better

GPL is a constitution that doesn't let you leave the country though.

>he thinks just because he doesn't care that others won't too
Idiot.

Let's say I have some code under GPL. How would I know if it became part of their newest Windows version when theirs is closed source?