[sillysaurus2]

I apologize that my original comment was lightweight and lacking sources. If I make such a claim, I should back it up with sources. I'm about to fall asleep though, and I don't remember where precisely I saw it.

Within the last couple months, there was a pretty big discussion featuring BSD licensers vs GPL licensers. If I remember correctly, the GPLers were saying that by using BSD, one enables software freedoms to be taken away, and therefore BSD and MIT licenses should be strongly opposed.

[tmikaeld]

I think it is the fact that some companies create crippleware open source project where parts of the core are open source and additional key parts are licensed under a sub-license that requires payment. Also, MIT and BSD doesn't enforce you to share added changes, fixes or additions to a project because of this - thus, hurting the open source community by the project not gaining (possibly) important or significant changes.

From a company standpoint, this makes sense if the parts are large and costed a lot to develop. Some companies eventually make these parts available eventually, some don't though - possible because open sourcing something that you initially charge for, could piss some customers off when they realize that they could have gotten it free.

[nknighthb]

These "discussions" happen all the time, so I have no idea which one you're referring to, but the only reason anyone on the GPL side "gets mad" is because those on the BSD side whine childishly whenever someone puts something under the GPL.

[stephenr]

As opposed to GPL & Toejam afficianados alike, who basically claim any license except GPL3 is the work of the devil, because I, a developer, dare to give someone other downstream developer, the choice to distribute derivative works how they see fit.

GPL perponents always claim its about "freedom". But it's one specific type of freedom, to the exclusion of all others.

[nknighthb]

Actually, at the moment, it's about the freedom of the developer of software to choose the license their code is offered under. GPL advocates make arguments for use of GPL. BSD advocates, as you've just demonstrated, prefer ad hominem attacks on RMS when they don't get what they selfishly feel entitled to.

[stephenr]

> it's about the freedom of the developer of software to choose the license their code is offered under

except, according to RMS and his fans, any choice but GPL is "wrong".

[belorn]

That is false, and now you are representing someone else opinion incorrecly. Would you like having other saying "according to stephenr and people like him, he thinks ..."

  "Releasing your code under one of the BSD licenses,
  or some other permissive non-copyleft license,
  is not doing wrong*"

- last sentence at https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-copyleft.html

"Is not doing wrong", the Exact word for word opposite to your claim.

Now please tell that you are sorry for misrepresenting someone else opinion and promise never to do it again. It is a shameful act.

[stephenr]

From http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00247.html

>The cause of the setback is the existence of a non-copylefted compiler that therefore becomes the base for nonfree compilers. The identity of that compiler -- whether it be LLVM, GCC, or something else -- is a secondary detail. To make GCC available for such use would be throwing in the towel. If that enables GCC to "win", the victory would be hollow, because it would not be a victory for what really matters: users' freedom.

> The only code that helps us and not our adversaries is copylefted code. Free software released under a pushover license is available for us to use, but available to our adversaries just as well. If you want your work to give freedom an advantage, use the leverage available to you -- copyleft your code. I invite those working on major add-ons to LLVM to release them under GNU GPL version-3-or-later.

If that isn't RMS saying he believes its wrong to release code under a BSD/MIT/etc permissive license, what is it?

This is the whole reason so many people use BSD or MIT (or similar) these days - they just want to write code and let others use it. RMS seems to be locked in some kind of fantasy world where if someone uses something other than GPL, it will mean the end of the world.

For extra kicks - http://blog.libertymcateer.com/2013/06/stallmans-blindspot-o...

Now please say you are sorry for cherry picking one comment from the website of an ORGANISATION I NEVER MENTIONED and attributing it to A PERSON.

[nknighthb]

So what? Lots of people think lots of things are wrong that lots of other people disagree with. That has nothing to do with anything I've said.

You may want to make this thread about opinion and morality, since you can't "win" any other way, but that's not at all what it's about. The subjective merits of licenses are not at issue in any way, shape, or form.

[stephenr]

> You may want to make this thread about opinion and morality, since you can't "win" any other way

Sorry my name isn't RMS. I don't have to "win".

[rbanffy]

GPL-like licenses are designed to protect the freedoms of users at the expense of the freedoms downstream developers (or repackagers) would prefer to have. A Red Hat customer always gets full source code for all the GPL'ed software Red Hat sells them.

BSD-like licenses emphasize the rights of downstream developers (and repackagers) at the expense of the freedoms of their users. A Cisco user has no access to all the originally BSD-licensed software inside their routers.

[stephenr]

Yes, I understand the difference. My point is that RMS and his fans are near-religious in their belief that any choice but theirs is morally wrong.

[belorn]

In total contrast to all BSD fans and their near-religious belief that any choice but theirs is morally wrong.

Is it now that I should do some ad hominem attacks on openbsd project leader, just so the message really sinks in?

[stephenr]

> In total contrast to all BSD fans and their near-religious belief that any choice but theirs is morally wrong.

The difference is, anyone can freely make use of BSD licensed code, as they see fit.

Using GPL code means you have to "drink the kool-aid" - they don't just think any other choice is wrong, they force their view onto others.

[rbanffy]

For some, the rights of the user are non-negotiable. Considering how much our freedoms depend on being able to trust our computers and networks, I am very much inclined to think that way too.