Wich free software License do you prefer?

[Engnome]

If I were to write a big project I would probably license it under GPL to prevent someone to steal it close it and sell it. So I find it a little intriguing that the BSD people realese their OS under such a permissive license. Sure it is more free than GPL and I understand their claim about GPL being to restrictive and BSD being a more free license but still....

So I thought I'd ask everyone what is their favorite license. I know every license has it situation, like libraries I think should be LGPL so that commercial apps will be encouraged. (just look at the QT toolkit mess #-o ) but for a big program or an OS whats the best license in your opinion?

Edit: When i say BSD I mean the 4 clause is it? the one where you have to give credit, the shorter ones are pretty much no restrictions whatsoever.

[BWF89]

I love the GPL but the LGPL isn't without its merits.

With LGPL the original program code will still remain 100% free but your allowed re-brand the program by adding your own proprietary parts if you wanted. With GPL all parts of the program must be GPL or you could get sued.

EDIT: Voted LGPL

[xXx 0wn3d xXx]

I vote BSD.

[etc]

GPL for the philosophy and BSD because it's truly free.

[woedend]

i vote public domain...because THATS truly free. And its easier to say public domain than it is to write out 10 pages explaining limitations.

[raublekick]

in the real world, GPL

in the ideal world, public domain (but all software would be public domain in my ideal world :) )

[fluffington]

For big projects that I want to remain open-source and nominally under my control, I use GPL/LGPL. Everything else gets the MIT license.

[Gustav]

in the real world, GPL

in the ideal world, public domain (but all software would be public domain in my ideal world :) )
+1 on that :)

[Kvark]

Voted GPL even though pulic domain is the most free option. As long as it is possible to own knowledge it's best to use a licence that restricts against other restrictions.

But GPL 2 has flaws that makes it possible to take away the freedom GPL is supposed to preserve. For example TiVo gives you the source code to comply with GPL but if you put a modified version on the TiVo then DRM will prevent it from booting.

[tsb]

I vote public domain. Once we get rid of the idea of intellectual property we'll all be better off IMO. Cheaper and faster technological advancement would be neccessary to retain market share under those conditions IMO.

[ember]

I voted LGPL - basically for the same reasons as BFW89.

[eriqk]

GPL, because freedom is a strange and paradoxical thing (and Sharing Is Good).

Groet, Erik

[BWF89]

I don't see what the appeal of public domain is, under public domain anyone can use your work and they can claim that they wrote it. Under the BSD licence you get basically a public domain licence only they include a clause that says 1. You must give us credit if you make a fork off of it (like Sony and the PSP) and 2. You can't sue us if you install this in a nuclear power station and it causes a meltdown.

[FISHERMAN]

LGPL.
Altough Free Software is great ideal, I don't think it is realistic to think that everybody can/wants to live without proprietary software. There will always be niche markets(eg. games, professional/scientific software) that will buy proprietary software. So you shouln't completely lock out proprietary software if you want more people using GNU/Linux
For non-niche markets(OS, Office, Internet,...) free software is preferable.

[raublekick]

I don't see what the appeal of public domain is, under public domain anyone can use your work and they can claim that they wrote it. Under the BSD licence you get basically a public domain licence only they include a clause that says 1. You must give us credit if you make a fork off of it (like Sony and the PSP) and 2. You can't sue us if you install this in a nuclear power station and it causes a meltdown.


Well, in my post I did mention the ideal world, and in the ideal world people wouldn't just take your code as theirs :p

But really, I know what you mean. However, code is code. That's it. Code doesn't have a rich history behind it, detailing the painstaking hours that a single programmer put into it. Software is easy to copy and steal, and in the case of open-source, take credit for. This is unfortunate because it somewhat forces programmers to ensure that they get credit. But is that because they don't want their project getting botched by someone who doesn't have a personal stake in the project, or is it because they want to ensure recognition for their work? Any liscense is basically a means for the programmer to feed his ego and say "look what I did" while still allowing people to do something with the code.

In the ideal world, people would just respect other peoples' works and not take advantage of them, but in the real-world, certainly public domain will never work.