GPL licence vs BSD licence - which makes more sense to you?

[youbuntu]

Hi people. I have just been reading:

http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/08/1832255

as one who was ignorant of the BSD licence up until now. I still haven't *completely* understood the concepts and values of it, but it seems that the GPL values freedom of code more, so that the source is *always* left open and able to be modified and changed.

I just wondered which licence you guys prefer or use - personally I am a GPL guy, and I think it makes a *great* deal more sense, even if they would call us "communists" which is kinda silly. As far as I can ascertain, code seems to be hidden somewhat more in the BSD way of life - you are free to use the resulting compiled software, but the source doesn't *have* to be left open - is this correct?.

I would like some guidance and feedback, as I am a little bit confused - thanks.

[ZankerH]

I just wondered which licence you guys prefer or use - personally I am a GPL guy, and I think it makes a *great* deal more sense, even if they would call us "communists" which is kinda silly. As far as I can ascertain, code seems to be hidden somewhat more in the BSD way of life - you are free to use the resulting compiled software, but the source doesn't *have* to be left open - is this correct?.

No.

Code licensed under the GNU GPL may be reused, but has to be released under an equivalent Free license. The BSD licence allows you to take the code and release it under any licence you want, even restrictive proprietary licences.

[Prodigal Son]

No.

Code licensed under the GNU GPL may be reused, but has to be released under an equivalent Free license. The BSD licence allows you to take the code and release it under any licence you want, even restrictive proprietary licences.

Original BSD license isn't compatible with GPL.

[ZankerH]

Original BSD license isn't compatible with GPL.

Which is precisely what I've stated.

[youbuntu]

No.

Code licensed under the GNU GPL may be reused, but has to be released under an equivalent Free license. The BSD licence allows you to take the code and release it under any licence you want, even restrictive proprietary licences.

That seems a little TOO free.

[infestor]

then there is the risk of your software to be stolen...BSD license doesn't make sense?

[ice60]

i think the gpl v2 license was good, but not great, and can't remember everything about v3, but i didn't like it, the code was more restricted. if you want a true free license you have to go with bsd.

to me the whole idealism behind gnu is very offensive, i really hate with a passion people how stick their noses in to other people's business and tell them only their way is right - such as the way stallman and his followers behave.

i love *nix, but to be honest neither the GPL licence nor the BSD licenses make much sense to me. if i wrote a lot of code i'd let people have it only if they asked me first and i agreed they could have it.

[Npl]

then there is the risk of your software to be stolen...BSD license doesn't make sense?if its truly free it cant be stolen. and I mean free and not "free" as in a 20 page article which tells what you cant do.

GPL, BSD (or rather X11 which I would prefer) and proprietary all have their places, but I have trouble with GPL beeing called "free" - its marketing ******** at its finest. Its more restrictive to both developers and users than alot proprietary software.

[youbuntu]

i think the gpl v2 license was good, but not great, and can't remember everything about v3, but i didn't like it, the code was more restricted. if you want a true free license you have to go with bsd.

to me the whole idealism behind gnu is very offensive, i really hate with a passion people how stick their noses in to other people's business and tell them only their way is right - such as the way stallman and his followers behave.

i love *nix, but to be honest neither the GPL licence nor the BSD licenses make much sense to me. if i wrote a lot of code i'd let people have it only if they asked me first and i agreed they could have it.

I would hardly say they "stick their noses into other people's business" - if you use GPL code, you agree to share your modified version with all 4 freedoms intact. Noone forces anyone to use GPL code, *or* to release their own code under GPL. Richard Stallman is an extremely intelligent and wise man - his theory makes complete sense, but of course I don't expect all to agree, and they don't have to use GPL, do they.

GPL is far better for the greater good IMHO, but that is my view.

[kevCast]

I would hardly say they "stick their noses into other people's business" - if you use GPL code, you agree to share your modified version with all 4 freedoms intact. Noone forces anyone to use GPL code, *or* to release their own code under GPL. Richard Stallman is an extremely intelligent and wise man - his theory makes complete sense, but of course I don't expect all to agree, and they don't have to use GPL, do they.

GPL is far better for the greater good IMHO, but that is my view.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I25UeVXrEHQ

He is a sage.

[Eisenwinter]

The best license would be "do whatever you want with the code except sue the original writer if you close it, and file patent requests for it".

[Keyper7]

if its truly free it cant be stolen. and I mean free and not "free" as in a 20 page article which tells what you cant do.

GPL, BSD (or rather X11 which I would prefer) and proprietary all have their places, but I have trouble with GPL beeing called "free" - its marketing ******** at its finest. Its more restrictive to both developers and users than alot proprietary software.

This is a very recurring discussion, but about this point: my personal interpretation (feel free to disagree) is that GPL means "code is free" while BSD means "developer is free". So "free" is an adjective that makes sense in both cases: you just have to place it in front of the right noun.

[Bachstelze]

Both make sense. They serve a different purpose, that's all. Just use the one that fits best with what you want to do with your code.

[Regenweald]

Both make sense. They serve a different purpose, that's all. Just use the one that fits best with what you want to do with your code.

Why does no one get this ? there is no one size fits all.

[tcoffeep]

if its truly free it cant be stolen. and I mean free and not "free" as in a 20 page article which tells what you cant do.

GPL, BSD (or rather X11 which I would prefer) and proprietary all have their places, but I have trouble with GPL beeing called "free" - its marketing ******** at its finest. Its more restrictive to both developers and users than alot proprietary software.

The BSD and MIT/X11 are two different licenses.

[blueturtl]

Just a quick question... if GPL permits everything except the removal of the rights it grants, what is the point of the BSD license?

Isn't the ability to do what ever you want including re-license the software essentially the same as having no license at all?

No flames please, this is an honest question.

[Keyper7]

Just a quick question... if GPL permits everything except the removal of the rights it grants, what is the point of the BSD license?

Isn't the ability to do what ever you want including re-license the software essentially the same as having no license at all?

No flames please, this is an honest question.

It's not "do whatever you want" or "re-license under any terms". There are clauses about maintaining the original copyright notice and warranty disclaimer, for example. It just happens that wrapping with GPL does not violate those clauses. Wrapping with other licenses might violate them.

[slakkie]

Hi people. I have just been reading:

http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/08/1832255

as one who was ignorant of the BSD licence up until now. I still haven't *completely* understood the concepts and values of it, but it seems that the GPL values freedom of code more, so that the source is *always* left open and able to be modified and changed.

I just wondered which licence you guys prefer or use - personally I am a GPL guy, and I think it makes a *great* deal more sense, even if they would call us "communists" which is kinda silly. As far as I can ascertain, code seems to be hidden somewhat more in the BSD way of life - you are free to use the resulting compiled software, but the source doesn't *have* to be left open - is this correct?.

I would like some guidance and feedback, as I am a little bit confused - thanks.

Personally I prefer BSD, since it offers more freedom to the user. It can be used in both closed source and open source projects which enabled more users to make use of the software. GPL for me is also a bit too viral, once a project goes GPL it is "hard" to incorporate in into something which is not GPL.

Perhaps since I started out as a FreeBSD user I prefer the BSD license.

[Bachstelze]

GPL for me is also a bit too viral, once a project goes GPL it is "hard" to incorporate in into something which is not GPL.

s/hard/impossible/ (without special permission from the copyright owner). That's the whole point of the GPL.

[ice60]

I would hardly say they "stick their noses into other people's business" - if you use GPL code, you agree to share your modified version with all 4 freedoms intact. Noone forces anyone to use GPL code, *or* to release their own code under GPL. Richard Stallman is an extremely intelligent and wise man - his theory makes complete sense, but of course I don't expect all to agree, and they don't have to use GPL, do they.

GPL is far better for the greater good IMHO, but that is my view.i actually haven't read this, but i'm sure you can find out where free software goes wrong on their own page -
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html

just make a note of anything socially and/or politically agressive and you'll soon see where they go wrong :)

OT i'm not saying this to be mean, it's true. i saw your sig the other day and felt ill and had to get up and walk out the room. again after i posted in this thread the first time a picture of those two people entered my head. i felt ill again. it's happening now. i don't think we can agree on anything, unless you like that blog post about putting fry on the bonfire?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100015874/my-choice-for-the-bonfire-stephen-fry/
he's vile just like stallman.

edit i'm not trying to be offensive i know i have a bit of a problem with stallman and fry and am not able to be calm when i talk about them. sorry.

[slakkie]

s/hard/impossible/ (without special permission from the copyright owner). That's the whole point of the GPL.

Hence why I said "hard" since you need approval from the maintainers. I know that's the point, why do you think I said it is too viral.

[blueturtl]

It's not "do whatever you want" or "re-license under any terms". There are clauses about maintaining the original copyright notice and warranty disclaimer, for example. It just happens that wrapping with GPL does not violate those clauses. Wrapping with other licenses might violate them.

Thanks for clarifying.

The GPL as I understand was written to preserve the freedom of licensed material, and the rights of the end-users so it prohibits prohibiting the rights it endows.

The BSD license as far as I understand, does not. To me the GPL license makes more sense because of this.

[dragos240]

The best license is WT*PL. Do can do whatever the heck you want with it!

[youbuntu]

...GPL for me is also a bit too viral, once a project goes GPL it is "hard" to incorporate in into something which is not GPL...

That is the whole point - code *should* be open and freely distributable - it benefits society in myriad ways which are not always immediately obvious.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I25UeVXrEHQ

He is a sage.

Hardly on-topic, and besides - so what - we *all* have odd and perhaps annoying habits. Maybe there would have been a more apt time to do this, but how does this detract from his philosophy and all the work he has done for the community?. I don't see your aim in including such a video - it is as if you expect us to say "oh well then, if he picks his feet then I'll never consider free software". Nice contribution, but *slightly* irrelevant.


Thanks for clarifying.

The GPL as I understand was written to preserve the freedom of licensed material, and the rights of the end-users so it prohibits prohibiting the rights it endows.

The BSD license as far as I understand, does not. To me the GPL license makes more sense because of this.

To me, the choice between GPL or BSD etc shows the amount that a person cares about the greater good of society as a whole, and technological advances as a race. Why keep something to yourself if it can be beneficial to us all?. I was in a shop today where they unlock mobile phones, talking to a person I know, and he was saying how he has a "secret method" for unlocking the iPhone, and how he wouldn't tell anyone his "secret method". My first thoughts were:

1/ Your "secret method" is probably very well known to many people already.

2/ If you keep it a secret, how will anyone know if this method already exists or not.

3/ It is hardly a groundbreaking advance in technology, to have one's own method of doing something for which the information is already widespread and freely available *anyway*.

4/ Why not just share your "secret method" and benefit other people having the same struggles as you did before you came across it?.


I understand that some people feel special and "elite" knowing their own "secret methods", but I'd feel a LOT better if I shared my knowledge and helped people - that is what humanity is all about - sharing the burden and making life easier through the refusal to be selfish.

This is why I think the GPL is a wonderful ethos - share and benefit other people looking for the solution that you found - why be mean and selfish, wielding your power as if it is something magical?. Share the knowledge, and make the world a slightly better place, bit by bit. :)

[slakkie]

That is the whole point - code *should* be open and freely distributable - it benefits society in myriad ways which are not always immediately obvious.


It is not really open and freely distributable if you need a A3 paper to explain when and how people can distribute GPL software.

[youbuntu]

:-({|=

Are you deliberately trying to cause an argument?. Please tone down the smart replies and deliberately provocative outbursts, otherwise I shall have to report you for being a silly billy. Thanks.


You know, adding "in my opinion" or "to me, so take this with a grain of salt" in the beggining of a sentence does not magically make the insulting terms in such sentence less insulting. Is it really that hard to say "I don't like the GPL" and leave it at that? Do you really need to connect it to paranoia and lunacy to get your point across?

If he is dealing with paranoid lunatics on a daily basis, then you can't blame the guy for using such terms - this is probably the boundary of his expressiveness. ;)

[Frak]

Are you deliberately trying to cause an argument?. Please tone down the smart replies and deliberately provocative outbursts, otherwise I shall have to report you for being a silly billy. Thanks.
I'm entitled to my opinions. If you don't like it, don't read them. Welcome to the internet.

[earthpigg]

the GPL makes end-user freedom it's priority.

the BSD makes programmer freedom it's priority.

i'd rather error on the side of Freedom for my grandmother* than on the side of a corporation.


*or anyone else that is more-or-less destined never to be anything but an end-user, for better or worse. Power to the People, as they say.


The best license is WT*PL. Do can do whatever the heck you want with it!

i myself, at least, certainly think the WTFPL has it's place:

(following link contains the big-bad scary "F" word)
http://sites.google.com/site/masonux/home/legal-stuff


Excluding the word "Masonux" as mentioned above, the rest of this website is released under the WTFPL Version 2.

WTFPL Wikipedia Article.
WTFPL Website.
WTFPL at the Free Software Foundation


DO WHAT THE ---- YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2, December 2004

Copyright (C) 2004 Sam Hocevar
14 rue de Plaisance, 75014 Paris, France
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim or modified copies of this license document, and changing it is allowed as long as the name is changed.

DO WHAT THE ---- YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION

0. You just DO WHAT THE ---- YOU WANT TO.

the GNU Free Document License, or whatever it is called, is certainly rubbish.

[Keyper7]

I'm entitled to my opinions. If you don't like it, don't read them. Welcome to the internet.

You're not entitled to violate the policy (http://ubuntuforums.org/index.php?page=policy). If you do, users will report you. Welcome to the Ubuntu Forums.

[slakkie]

You're not entitled to violate the policy (http://ubuntuforums.org/index.php?page=policy). If you do, users will report you. Welcome to the Ubuntu Forums.

Chill dude, he is not violating the CoC of UF with his post regarding GPL. Grow up and learn to deal with a different opinion.

[youbuntu]

I'm entitled to my opinions. If you don't like it, don't read them. Welcome to the internet.

I agree that you are entitled to your opinions, BUT you are not entitled to express them however you wish - do you really want me to report you?. I should have done it by now, but I'm feeling benevolent and I don't want to be running to teacher for every little thing. Of *course* I am going to read them - this is my thread, and I obviously wish to read the conversations - that is why I started the topic!!. :rolleyes:

:)

[Keyper7]

Chill dude, he is not violating the CoC of UF with his post regarding GPL. Grow up and learn to deal with a different opinion.

Calling people paranoid and lunatic is not simply a "different opinion".

And, just for the record, I have absolutely no problems with the rest of his post and with the opinion itself.

It was just the last, unnecessary, sentence that bothered me.

[youbuntu]

Chill dude, he is not violating the CoC of UF with his post regarding GPL. Grow up and learn to deal with a different opinion.

Telling someone to "grow up" without any evident provocation, is also provocation in itself. Shall I add you to the "to report" list, also?. Come on guys, stop arguing... please?! :D

[slakkie]

Telling someone to "grow up" without any evident provocation, is also provocation in itself. Shall I add you to the "to report" list, also?. Come on guys, stop arguing... please?! :DPlease do.

[overdrank]

Thread has turned into nothing but insults and reports. Thread closed