Yigal Chripun wrote:
On 29/03/2009 08:26, Mike Parker wrote:
Yigal Chripun wrote:
How many companies do you know that use the BSD for their products?
BSD is used by universities and non-profit organizations not companies.
claiming that BSD > GPL in a corporate environment is simply wrong.
That's not the point. Plenty of companies use open source libraries in
their code, even if they don't open source the end product. BSD is
friendlier to them because they aren't forced to open up everything that
touches it. GPL is viral. Use one GPL library and your whole project is
tainted. Philosophically, GPL gives freedom to the end user. BSD leaves
freedom with the developer. IMO, the latter is where it should be, as it
is the developer who expends the resources to create the product in the
first place.
you contradict yourself. if a company uses open source libraries in
their products than they are the *users* of the code, and the
*developers* are those who *created* the library. what you meant to say
is that many companies _exploit_ non free open source code (BSD and
such) in their closed source products. You do all the hard work, give
away your library for free, and those companies exploit that to enlarge
their profit margins, after all they invested much less time/money in
the product. if you really intended this outcome, you just robbed
someone's job at that same company.
No contradictions here. When someone releases a library under a more
generous license like the BSD, they know full well that anyone can use
that source in closed-source, proprietary software. Companies who do so
are not *exploiting* anyone or anything. They are given permission by
the developers of the library, who consciously made that choice, to do so.
The GPL gives freedom to both the developers and the end-users while the
BSD doesn't give any freedoms at all, to no one. That is why there are
many successful companies that base their business model on free
licenses like the GPL and zero companies that use the BSD. and that is
the point.
No, it gives no freedom to developers at all. Using any GPL code in your
project /forces/ you to open your source. It takes the decision of
whether to open or not out of your hands and puts it in the hands of
whomever created the GPLed product you use. That's why you won't find
bindings for any GPL libraries in Derelict, because then Derelict and
any project that uses it would have to be GPL. You call that freedom?
I think the GPL is a great choice for executables, particularly those
that were formerly closed. For example, id software uses the GPL when
opening their older games. For libraries, though, it severely limits the
user base. I would never release a library under the GPL, because I
don't want to restrict anyone in using it. As a library developer, I
don't care what the end product is, or who the end users are. All I care
about are those using my product. They are the ones I want to whom I
want to give the freedom of choice.
