Quote:
Originally Posted by Baltar  I agree that the GPL in itself is just a choice, but there are people out there who think that all software should be licensed under the GPL, and that's where most arguments arise. However, it's worth noting that (ironically) the GPL is a very restrictive license. Only the MIT/BSD/ZLIB licenses are truly free licenses because they allow people to use the code in any way they want (while still having the author retain copyright). I'm planning on releasing some code in the future, and I'll be using one of those licenses. I very much dislike the GPL/LGPL due to the way it restricts people's freedom in the way they can use the code, and/or inconveniences them. |
I will agree that when it comes to someone wanting to use the source code in the way they want, the GPL is more restrictive than the BSD license.
However, the GPL's restrictions are there to enforce certain freedoms and ensure that they remain free. The MIT/BSD/ZLib licenses can't guarantee those freedoms since the author of derivative code can do whatever he/she wants, as you said. This difference is why people choose the GPL over those other licenses. They want to make sure that future users/developers will have the same freedoms that the GPL guarantees.
Also, the GPL doesn't prevent use in proprietary software. See
libstdc++ copying.
Also: Arrr!
/me dons his eye patch.