[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.

[belorn]

Saying: "The difference is that my choice is right", is not helping you. It only strengthen the images of fundamentalism that you are carrying for BSD.

You do not just think any other choice is wrong, you are forcing your view onto others. Please stop.

[stephenr]

> You do not just think any other choice is wrong, you are forcing your view onto others.

How am I forcing my view onto others?

I take issue with people claiming the GPL is somehow "good" while BSD is "bad", and thus I reply. I'm not telling anyone they shouldn't USE the GPL. I'm saying stop acting like a door knocking jehovah witness trying to convert everyone else to use the GPL.

[rbanffy]

> anyone can freely make use of BSD licensed code, as they see fit.

Anyone but the users of "improved" versions.

[stephenr]

So you're working on the assumption that Fred took some of my BSD code, improved it, released it as a product, and Bob has paid for a commercial license to use it. Now Bob says he wants the source code for Fred's product.

How is it my right or the right of the user to demand what Fred do with the code he wrote?

[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.