[epistasis]

That doesn't make sense to me. How much freedom does a non-programming user gain by having the source code? Such users can hire others to work with the source code for them.

And interestingly enough, non-programming users have this same freedom whether it's BSD code or GPL code. Even more, these same non-programming users have greater freedom with BSD code, because it's more permissive.

I think what you're arguing, obliquely, is that users benefit because there's more source code around when there's GPL than when there's BSD. This is still the core debate between GPL and BSD; does being permissive and trusting people result in less or more source code?

For me, personally, I always contribute back to BSD projects, and avoid GPL projects where there are alternative. I want the freedom BSD gives me, even if I don't exercise it, and even if I never plan to exercise it. But it's why defining GPL as "free" software comes across as double-speak to me.

I think that many people share my goal of having more source code out there, with the freedom to modify it for one's own purposes, but it's definitely not universally agreed that GPL is the best way to achieve this.

[davexunit]

>How much freedom does a non-programming user gain by having the source code?

How much freedom does a non-journalist gain by having freedom of the press? I can understand the value of a free, uncensored press even though I am not a journalist. I think that users can understand the value of software freedom even though they do not write code.

>Even more, these same non-programming users have greater freedom with BSD code, because it's more permissive.

Incorrect. You are referring to the "freedom" to restrict another user by distributing nonfree software. The free software community is concerned with positive liberty[1] and freedom for the end-user instead of the copyright holder.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty

[synchronise]

Actually it includes the freedom to make licensing as difficult as possible for those who want to use your code.

The GPL is incompatible with several FOSS licenses including itself (GPLv2 only and GPLv3 being the best example) and such legal issues only serve to drive away potential users of those licenses.

Personally, that's why I find the Mozilla Public License 2.0 to be the only copyleft license I can trust. It's much clearer than the GPL, it doesn't have restrictions on dynamic linking, it is copyleft to itself but it allows code to be shipped under a defined secondary license. By default these are the entire *GPL family from v2, but it can be expanded to include other copyleft licenses such as MPLv1 or the CDDL if the developer so wishes, as long as the parts under the MPLv2 are available separately from the project under that license.

This stops license incompatibilities, something that the FSF needs to work on with their licensing scheme.

[smsm42]

Freedom of the press in not a good analogy. Better analogy would be a source of information - such as a research group - that allows you to print their information only if you allow unlimited reprints - i.e. refusing to talk to journalists form Wall Street Journal or New York Times because they have paywalls. While it is a completely legitimate behavior, it's hardly synonymous with the freedom of the press as one usually understand it.

[_delirium]

> I want the freedom BSD gives me

But from a user-centric perspective, this is not freedom but power, specifically the power to restrict downstream users' freedom. The GPL does not give you that power, while the BSD license does. That's the main philosophical difference: the GPL says you cannot add new restrictions on distribution, while the BSD says you an add any restrictions you want, as long as you don't remove the copyright notice.

[lsc]

Freedom is nearly always a matter of perspective.

Many folks, especially Americans, feel that the freedom, for example, to kick someone else off their land (or out of their living room) is pretty important, even though from the perspective of the person getting kicked off, this is a restriction of freedom.

The BSD licence is more free from the perspective of the developer, while yes, the gpl is more free from the perspective of the user.

Personally, I think it's good that we have both. "Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others."

The fact of the matter is that under at least US law, it's the programmers choice how to licence their software, and considering that a whole lot of software is not open-source at all, both the bsd licence and the gpl licence are way better for users, I think, than closed-source software.

[pjmlp]

Except that most developers working on open source are actually getting their bills paid by working on closed-source software.

That speaks it all, I think.

[lsc]

>Except that most developers working on open source are actually getting their bills paid by working on closed-source software.

Do you have references for that statement?

I was under the impression was that most, or at least a very large portion of open-source code was written by people paid by companies to work on that open-source code. Both on the BSD and GPL side of things.

[pjmlp]

Which companies and in what types of markets?

Facebook, IBM, Google, Intel, Microsoft, Oracle, SAP are only partially open source.

Most of the stuff I see 100% open source, are companies that sell SaaS or PaaS, without giving access to their internal stuff built on top of open source. When they do, it is only a small subset of their tooling/frameworks.

[lsc]

I was taking issue with your statement "most developers working on open source are actually getting their bills paid by working on closed-source software."

That's /completely different/ from who is a 100% open-source company. Hell, you could probably call my company almost 100% open-source, but we haven't contributed a hell of a lot back.

https://www.linux.com/learn/tutorials/560928-counting-contri...

According to that, volunteers (people, as you said, who are probably actually paid to write closed source software, and do this on their own time.[1]) are a significant force, but not the majority. It looks like the majority of contributions come from folks paid to work on open source (and give the changes back) by some company or another. Sometimes those companies are not primarily open-source companies. Some of those companies are not software companies at all. Intel probably has the clearest incentive here; if their hardware works well under linux, well, that is going to tend to increase hardware sales.

Now, of course, the Linux kernel may or may not be representative of other open source projects, but those are the statistics I find.

This also lines up with what I've seen personally; most people I know who contribute significantly do contribute some of their own time, but most of them get paid to do it most of the time.

[1]I'm not sure your statement is true even there. Most of the major contributors I know who put in significant personal time do get paid to work on open-source stuff when they get paid. I mean, if you have a deep understanding of a valuable and commonly-used codebase, well, when looking for employment, working on said codebase is very likely the highest value use of your time.

[belorn]

In every study I have seen, your statement is incorrect.

The wast majority of developers work at internal code, code that never will get redistributed outside the company walls.

[pjmlp]

> The wast majority of developers work at internal code, code that never will get redistributed outside the company walls.

According to my dictionary this means closed source, which only reinforces my statement.

[belorn]

As the developer, I can see the source tree. The company owners can see the source tree. As such, everyone who has access to the program also has access to the source.

GPL allows this, as do every type of open/free software license. Either this mean that your word choice of "closed source" lacks meaning, or we are not talking about the same thing.

[jka]

Not everyone can cook, but many people might find it informational and/or useful eventually to know how their meal was prepared.

In some restaurants, you can't see how your food is prepared at all, and you judge based on your knowledge and experience of prior meals.

Some restaurants will openly show you the preparation of the food (to display that it's freshly made, reassure that there's no microwaving going on, etc).

And in most cases you can look up recipes online to try your own hand at recreating a similar meal - although often without the same tools, experience, ingredients and precise recipe, it might be tricky.

Ultimately I think it'd be wonderful for all recipes and instructional information to be available for anyone to view and try themselves if they so desired - it'd also help people understand what goes into the food that they eat (and pay for).