[rickydroll]

> Ok... I see where this is going...

Me too, although it might not be the same thing you are thinking of. I see the license as a way to let corporations take advantage of your free work without giving anything back. I LGPL my public work so that anyone is free to use it but if they change it, I need to get the changes back and decide if I want to incorporate them.

So far, I've been fortunate that nobody's paying attention to my work so I don't have to worry about whether to harass someone for violating the copyleft.

[torstenvl]

> I LGPL my public work so that anyone is free to use it but if they change it, I need to get the changes back and decide if I want to incorporate them.

The LGPL doesn't do that. If that's what you want, you probably want to use a modified version of the MPL requiring distribution back to you. Note that, while the MPL permits such modifications, they are generally discouraged. Sadly, there are no popular copyleft licenses that do this "out of the box," to my knowledge.

[petre]

They do give some changes back (like drivers, or the ability to use Linux drivers in this case) because it's easier to have them upstream and not patch with every new release and fix every time it breaks due to other changes. The companies that use FreeBSD are also major donors to the founndation.