[craigsmansion]

> Deploying GPL code is a legal process.

Deploying GPL code is only a legal process if you make it one.

If you're using it to write or deploy other GPL software, it's pretty much a straight forward affair. And if you're not using a GPL license, well, that's your problem: there's nothing stopping you from using the GPL to make all the hassle go away.

[Fredej]

That's true. Releasing other open source software using GPL software is much simpler. But if it's desirable to deploy closed source software GPL may not be the right choice unless you have time to sit down and consider the legal ramifications. In many cases there may be none if you use it in the right way but it should be and is being considered when companies decide consider whether or not to use open source software.

That part is often significantly simpler with BSD which is why it's significantly easier to just allow BSD and have a case-by-case basis for GPL.

[craigsmansion]

> desirable to deploy closed source software

Well, that's a peculiar desire. If a programmer wants to state "I do not want my code to be used in closed-source proprietary software" there's little more they can do than release under the GPL.

There might be some good faith legal consultancy in seeing how, for example, the CDDL and the GPL interact, but for using GPL code in closed source products, the only excuse really is "What can I get away with?"