| I'm striked by all this grey text! > Crucially, a user of GPL software is allowed to do whatever they want. Did you know FreeBSD allows you to build a full release into memory stick right from the source? No developer experience necessary! :-) Its easy forget that with the GPL, you also pass on the burden of whomever distributes software provides a way to get the source. BSD encumbers you with no such strings attached. The words "do whatever they want" and "definitely use in commercial setting" may be better set with an asterisk. GPL software is often available for free downloads and by second hand on CD's, notably with access to source code. Its popular among developers. Knowing that, it surprises me how often I see statements expressing GPL as if it were a brand new, moddable car with absolutely no string attached. GPL software would provide a means to get the source code, but other open source projects do too. But if you hand someone that Ubuntu CD, they definitely can't "do whatever they want". Its obligating them to comply to terms should they distribute it. > Even resell for money, and definitely use in commercial setting. The obligations do not run over well with commercial or reselling. I speak from personal experience and pain having dealt with GPLv2 in a commercial settings years ago. Ultimately business was lost do the the lack of flexibility we could give our customers. We had to deal with whether deploying our code on customers' servers created a distribution. Some customers will only accept running software if its on their servers, full stop. Many of the most successful public tech companies keep their code proprietary. Not out of pulling one over on you, or to limit your rights, but out of competitive advantage. Many choose to release code at their discretion, often in permissive libraries. > Except develop the software however they want. (greyed out as if it were incorrect) My BSD licensed projects can't simply pull in GPL code. My could would then be a derivative, the license would also affect people using code of my distributed with GPL parts. For GPL, the control over the distribution is uncharacteristically rigid in an open source software ecosystem of shared libraries built from source, developers contributing upstream on projects despite terms forcing reciprocity. The terms cascade downstream and steer the ultimate fate of the project - its not backwards compatible. You're walling yourself off to developers who can't comply with the terms GPL, and if you lose developers, you're losing potential contributions to the project. |