[tzs]

Because numerous other FLOSS licenses, including others that are copyleft licenses such as MS-PL, do not run into problems if someone uses code under those licenses in an app that they distribute through the App Store.

The GPL ends up standing out as the "free" license that makes it hardest to actually distribute free software and reuse free code in other free software projects.

[sprout]

Hm, it seems to me it's very difficult to reuse the BSD code that underlies iOS. Yeah, you can use the code that Apple gives you, but as far as making modifications Apple actively makes it so you run into problems.

In other words, talking about reuse is changing the subject. The important thing is freedom to modify the code you're using.

[Locke1689]

The important thing is freedom to modify the code you're using.

As someone who prefers to license under the FreeBSD license -- no it's not. It's about contributing code to make software everywhere better (whether or not you can modify the result or not). Now, this is just my opinion, but so is yours and you should probably speak of it that way instead of like fact.

[sprout]

In essence, the GPL plays the long game and BSD plays the short game. This statement:

>The GPL ends up standing out as the "free" license that makes it hardest to actually distribute free software and reuse free code in other free software projects.

Is only true when you look at it immediately. In the long run, BSD licenses stand out as the ones that make it hardest to reuse code, because people don't have to think about reuse when they modify it, which is an important consideration. If you're just modifying some code for your company's internal use, not only are you not going to refuse to distribute it, you're going to avoid coding for situations that have wider applicability.

And of course this is my opinion. That was clear when I said "the important thing." There's no need to pepper my speech with "I think" when I'm obviously stating things that are not factual.