To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
And they give -1 for that. Okey BSD is "the real" freedom code since it doesn't dictate anything important. While GPL dictates that all must be GPL, so not "the real" freedom. I hate using word freedom because it's rubbish and zealots only use it. Both have good things. While BSD can make more jobs by providing good start for project and then sell refined code as product, GPL business is service based. GPL's best part is it's viral effect that forces developers to bring changes back to community, something that BSD doesn't have. What i think is that both have problems and solution is somewhere middle. It would be great to see license that would make possible to add some value to programs and get little profit from that and still allow community to get some code back.






Member since:
That's the most ignorant view I've ever seen. It wouldn't even be so bad if you actually had some common courtesy and didn't call the BSD-alike licenses "traitors."
Honestly, I don't get this point of view at all. Think about it, if you're releasing your program as open source, the point is usually to give back to the community. With that in mind, consider the BSD license. When you license code under it, you're effectively saying everyone can benefit from this code. This leads to more code reuse, and effectively elevates the quality of the entire market, including closed source. GPL, on the other hand, makes it impractical for code to be reused in closed-source programs. This leads to less code reuse, and less quality in the market overall. Now tell me again, how is GPL better, besides the fact that you get to stick it to the man with your personal agendas?
-bytecoder