https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/bsdl-gpl/article.html
1. Introduction
This document makes a case for using a BSD style license for software and data; specifically it recommends using a BSD style license in place of the GPL. It can also be read as a BSD versus GPL Open Source License introduction and summary.
2. Very Brief Open Source History
Long before the term “Open Source” was used, software was developed by loose associations of programmers and freely exchanged. Starting in the early 1950's, organizations such as SHARE and DECUS developed much of the software that computer hardware companies bundled with their hardware offerings. At that time computer companies were in the hardware business; anything that reduced software cost and made more programs available made the hardware companies more competitive.
This model changed in the 1960's. In 1965 ADR developed the first licensed software product independent of a hardware company. ADR was competing against a free IBM package originally developed by IBM customers. ADR patented their software in 1968. To stop sharing of their program, they provided it under an equipment lease in which payment was spread over the lifetime of the product. ADR thus retained ownership and could control resale and reuse.
In 1969 the US Department of Justice charged IBM with destroying businesses by bundling free software with IBM hardware. As a result of this suit, IBM unbundled its software; that is, software became independent products separate from hardware.
In 1968 Informatics introduced the first commercial killer-app and rapidly established the concept of the software product, the software company, and very high rates of return. Informatics developed the perpetual license which is now standard throughout the computer industry, wherein ownership is never transferred to the customer.
>>53904298
http://blather.michaelwlucas.com/archives/1942
I think this is a nice article on the matter.
>Cuck 101
>>53904321
There he is. There he goes again. Look, everyone! He posted it once again! Isn't he just the funniest guy around?! Oh my God.
>>53904321
>>Cuck
Ebin simply ebin.
>>53904321
epik meme
>>53904298
Honest question for people who use GPL when screwing around on GitHub, why? Why do you care if someone copies your code and closes the source? It's a fucking tic-tac-toe program written in C. I've seen people GPL their fucking homework problems on GitHub even though half the code is copyrighted and from a textbook.
>>53904532
Yeah that's true.
At that point you may as well just include a comment at the top that says "THIS IS PUBLIC DOMAIN".
Even OpenBSD has that in some really unimportant programs.
>>53904532
>>53904549
But honestly if you want the true answer, GPL is a meme.
Really. People just hear about how good it is and "muh freedums" and use it without thinking about it.
BSD IS THE CANCER KILLING FREE SOFTWARE
>>53904565
FSF/GNU is a fucking cult.
>>53904298
It is official; Netcraft now confirms: *BSD is dying
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming close on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
>>53904298
tl;dr;don't care
however i must say that i did my due diligence and made sure to check the license of all foreign code in my latest project. none of it was GPL'd and I was very relieved
>>53904593
It's not even that.
It's really just the average retard going "oh it's apparently good for my freedoms!" and then they copy and paste the license and change a few words. That's it.
>>53904603
every thread until we like it
>>53904298
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a cockeyed miracle could save *BSD from its fate at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.
>>53904587
If BSD is cancer, GPL is a bullet to the brain
>>53904298
tldr:
so ms can steal your network stack and then shit on you
>>53904587
/thread
>>53904638
imagine the sheer human suffering if MS had written their own network stack, though
>>53904623
http://everything2.com/title/BSD+is+dying
>>53904549
There are some countries where you can't put software in the public domain.
>>53904587
Name one new free software product that is successful and GPL. GPL has one thing going for it, the Linux kernel, and nothing else.
>>53904603
>>53904627
This thread is about the license, not OS's.
>>53904638
Yeah the world would be better off if MS had no network stack at all or had to reinvent the wheel. /s
>>53904627
Anon please, that copypasta's from over a decade ago
>>53904688
I know about that, that's why I said "every thread until we like it".
>>53904532
I am morally opposed to people distributing a fork of my software as proprietary software. I would rather that they do not distribute it at all.
>>53904746
Yeah, I bet your code is REALLY IMPORTANT and that someone could really botnet it up.
>>53904549
every OpenBSD program that wasn't ripped from Unix/4.4BSD is essentially public domain. they don't know or care who uses it (apple, microsoft) because their software metrics are if it meets rigid security standards, not sales or "forks"
>>53904638
if the berkeley people wanted another long, complicated legal battle, sure, they could've used the GPL
>>53904803
Most modern BSD licenses are really just unambiguous way to say your stuff is public domain, just don't sue the authors if it breaks your stuff.
That's pretty much what the OSI license is.
>>53904746
What difference does it make whether it's proprietary or not?
>>53904770
>I bet your code is REALLY IMPORTANT
Does it matter though?
Licensing is taking a stance and what is licensed is irrelevant, it's about sending a message.
>>53904828
I love reading the phrase "THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND" and knowing there's only 1 paragraph to ignore instead of like 20 pages of shit that might be relevant in certain conditions
>>53904903
Wow, good thing your code is so important and everyone sees your message and thinks "you know, my Hello World program I wrote should really be GPL licensed instead, so I can stick it to the evil corporations."
>>53904903
>it's about sending a message
And your message is that you're a massive retard
>>53904298
I always use MIT license whenever I have the power to decide.
>>53904903
it's about whether someone at an organization believes that using your shitty function is worth making their whole project open source. unless your code is truly exceptional, you've guaranteed a certain level of resistance to its use
>>53904935
Yeah, I think ISC is great too.
Gets the point across in one paragraph, and that paragraph doesn't even concern most people.
I actually realized I got ISC wrong and wrote OSI instead earlier.
>>53904321
EARTH BELOW US
DRIFTING, FALLING
I'M RETURNING HOOOOOME
>>53904846
The difference is that I would be helping people distribute proprietary software. Distributing any kind of proprietary software is immoral. As long as the current copyright system exists, I won't help them do so.
>>53904973
it was
>>53904966
MIT which I also use, but it's all the same.
the licenses themselves appear to be freely licensed
>>53904967
That's a good thing!
>>53905036
Holy shit you are such a fag it's unreal. You're using proprietary software right now. 4chan is proprietary and uses proprietary software on its back end. You're also an ultra-mega-super freetard against all copyright. Good luck getting movies, books, or video games made when no one has the rights to their own creations, you retard. You are the reason people hate GNU, the FSF, and the GPL. Fuck you.
Stealing intellectual property is immoral, not legally creating it and distributing it, you communist piece of shit.
>>53905067
no, in actual practice it means that nearly every developer, even if they do open source in their spare time, will select any alternative from Apache, any BSD foundation including apple, any individual's creative commons or WTF you want project, etc.
that's a lot of competition for some kid with only 2 github stars. GPL'ing your fizzbuzz is like sending in a resume with a star trek-themed email address. nobody will look twice
*BSD is dying.
>>53906454
Nice irrelevant post.
>>53906487
thanks, it's my specialty.
*BSD is still dying, though.
>>53906501
Sure they are bud. And again, nice irrelevant post.
>>53906511
thanks again!
