That’s a GPL point of view. Most BSD users I’ve talked to prefer a more permissive license. Theo said: “GPL fans said the great problem we would face is that companies would
take our BSD code, modify it, and not give back. Nope – the great
problem we face is that people would wrap the GPL around our code, and
lock us out in the same way that these supposed companies would lock
us out. Just like the Linux community, we have many companies giving
us code back, all the time. But once the code is GPL’d, we cannot get
it back. Ironic.”
Which is fine with for example OpenBSD, they write “ISC or Berkeley style licences are preferred, the GPL is not acceptable when adding new code, NDAs are never acceptable. We want to make available source code that anyone can use for ANY PURPOSE, with no restrictions. We strive to make our software robust and secure, and encourage companies to use whichever pieces they want to.”
And where system is doing better, Linux or BSD? Also the point of the GPL is not to give back. You can have GPL code that is read only and it doesn’t hurt a thing. The point is you can get the code running on your computer and freely make changes to it.
Doing better in what way? Number of installs or being robust and secure? If we go by numbers one could argue that Windows is doing best on the desktop, and that proprietary code therefore is something to strive for. Either way it’s a tangent of the original statement, that the BSD license is a “pushover” license, which I oppose, because the BSD devs are deliberately allowing their code to be used by anyone for any reason.
Except it uses push over licensing
That’s a GPL point of view. Most BSD users I’ve talked to prefer a more permissive license. Theo said: “GPL fans said the great problem we would face is that companies would take our BSD code, modify it, and not give back. Nope – the great problem we face is that people would wrap the GPL around our code, and lock us out in the same way that these supposed companies would lock us out. Just like the Linux community, we have many companies giving us code back, all the time. But once the code is GPL’d, we cannot get it back. Ironic.”
i guess this might be why a lot of processing and storage clusters use it behind closed doors with proprietary code we will never see.
Which is fine with for example OpenBSD, they write “ISC or Berkeley style licences are preferred, the GPL is not acceptable when adding new code, NDAs are never acceptable. We want to make available source code that anyone can use for ANY PURPOSE, with no restrictions. We strive to make our software robust and secure, and encourage companies to use whichever pieces they want to.”
And where system is doing better, Linux or BSD? Also the point of the GPL is not to give back. You can have GPL code that is read only and it doesn’t hurt a thing. The point is you can get the code running on your computer and freely make changes to it.
Doing better in what way? Number of installs or being robust and secure? If we go by numbers one could argue that Windows is doing best on the desktop, and that proprietary code therefore is something to strive for. Either way it’s a tangent of the original statement, that the BSD license is a “pushover” license, which I oppose, because the BSD devs are deliberately allowing their code to be used by anyone for any reason.