So, why Don't we Give Microsoft our Code?

[Bölvaður]

I don't think people who use BSD/MIT/X11 licenses are concerned about people making profit off their code. People make profit off Linux too, you know, so what's the difference? It's that people using those licenses want people to be able to do as they like with their code.

There is no difference in the way you are thinking about it, you can still do what ever you want with GPL2.0 code, but you will have to release the alterations you did to that code.
That in turn will make the original project better.
With BDS that does not happen as they do not publish the changes they did to the code, hence the original code will not improve by those means.

[Bachstelze]

That's completely irrelevant to his/her argument.

Is it really? Let me elaborate then. One of the reasons OpenSSH is distributed under a BSD license is because it allows manufacturers of network software and hardware to include it in their products without restriction. If it weren't (i.e. if it were GPL), they would just develop their own SSH implementations, and I would bet a lot of money that those implementations would be full of security holes. The fact that extremely skilled developers release their implementation of SSH under the BSD license ultimately makes the Internet more secure for everyone.

[RiceMonster]

There is no difference in the way you are thinking about it, you can still do what ever you want with GPL2.0 code, but you will have to release the alterations you did to that code.
That in turn will make the original project better.
With BDS that does not happen as they do not publish the changes they did to the code, hence the original code will not improve by those means.

As far as I know, BSD developers do have companies giving their code back to said projects.

Is it really? Let me elaborate then. One of the reasons OpenSSH is distributed under a BSD license is because it allows manufacturers of network software and hardware to include it in their products without restriction. If it weren't (i.e. if it were GPL), they would just develop their own SSH implementations, and I would bet a lot of money that those implementations would be full of security holes. The fact that extremely skilled developers release their implementation of SSH under the BSD license ultimately makes the Internet more secure for everyone.

Ok, I agree with you there. Your first argument about a NULL pointer, was more or less a low-blow, pointing out a vulnerability in the Linux kernel that didn't really have anything to do with the topic at hand, rather than actually adressing the issue.

[Ozor Mox]

Let me see... the OpenSSH (and BSD in general) devs? Xorg? Apache? PHP? Thank God we don't have to rely on GPL people for SSH, I can't imagine how much damage a NULL pointer dereference would cause.

Well like I said, if they want to licence their projects like that then that is up to them. Clearly most open source projects consider the GPL a good licence for them though.

Fortunately, not everyone thinks like you. Some people haven't forgotten the sense of words such as "generosity" and "freedom" because of the FSF brainwash.

Oh yes I forgot, since I find the GPL a perfectly good licence, I also like it when everyone thinks the same as me and I never share any of my toys with anyone else. Give it a rest

Oh no, I'm very serious.

Ok well I guess it's good to know my sarcasm detector isn't malfunctioning!

I guess I just find it astonishing that you can say people who licence their work under the GPL are being "selfish". These people owe you nothing. You owe them something for making their software open source in my opinion. At the very least a cool, frosty beer if you use their project

[3rdalbum]

Is it really? Let me elaborate then. One of the reasons OpenSSH is distributed under a BSD license is because it allows manufacturers of network software and hardware to include it in their products without restriction. If it weren't (i.e. if it were GPL), they would just develop their own SSH implementations, and I would bet a lot of money that those implementations would be full of security holes. The fact that extremely skilled developers release their implementation of SSH under the BSD license ultimately makes the Internet more secure for everyone.

But many internet-connected devices already use Linux and other GPL software, and don't have any problems abiding by the license.

I license my projects under the GPL because I disagree with the idea of proprietary software, and I don't want the code that I've written to be used in a product whose license I don't agree with. In short, I don't want my code to hurt someone else's freedoms in the ways that traditional software licenses do.

The BSD and MIT folks don't agree with me, and I respect that.

Oh, incidentally, Microsoft does use some BSD code. Their command-line FTP program originated at Berkley.

[benmoran]

HymnToLife, I disagree with your viewpoint. For the people that do think alike, there are plenty of other licenses out there.

It all comes down to choice. People choose to use the GPL because they agree with it. Most of the people attributing code to GNU/Linux agree with it.

As a "hobby" coder, I feel it's the best choice. If I make something, I have no problems with anyone else using it. However if a company takes my code for free, I ask that they give back what changes they make. It's the most basic of give and take arrangements. There are not many valid reasons that I can see for a company not wanting to give back.

[Bachstelze]

As far as I know, BSD developers do have companies giving their code back to said projects.

Yes. However, to quote Theo, "once the code has been GPL'ed, we cannot have it back." That's why, by the way, I have much more respect for RMS than the Linux people. RMS recommends, when making modifications to free software, to always use the original license. Linux people, however, have no scruple wrapping the GPL around BSD code.

[Penguin Guy]

Who wants to give away their hard work for free, only to have it assimilated into some proprietary project and sold for profit? I can't think of much that would be more frustrating.

I, for one, do not feel the same way.

[Hyporeal]

That's why, by the way, I have much more respect for RMS than the Linux people. RMS recommends, when making modifications to free software, to always use the original license. Linux people, however, have no scrupple wrapping the GPL around BSD code.

So what? It's a valid, legal use of the code. The people who wrote the code gave their permission for anyone to wrap it in the GPL. Why would anyone have scruples about complying with the authors' explicit wishes? If you really support the BSD license then you have no right to be bitter when people fully take advantage of it.

[cmay]

By that logic, they'd already be using BSD code. Oh wait, Apple already is!

i think microsoft uses the BSD tcp/ip stack for windows XP also . i read it somewhere on wikipedia.