> GPL protects the freedom of the programmer who licensed his > code under those licenses: He wants it to be free for use, > but not to be turned into closed source products.
What a lying sonofabitch. That is not called freedom. That is called "forcible, viral open source". I think we can all see the difference. Open your motherfucking eyes, communist goofball... > A programmer who does not want to raise this barrier will > typically use the BSD license which is "more free". No, it's just plain "free." > BSDL in opposite is often criticized a "rape me license". No, it is not, except perhaps by lying atheist Marxist bastards and his religious adherents. > It explicitely (!) allows creating derivates in a closed > source manner. This means that parts of BSD licensed code > can be a key component in a proprietary closed source > product that is for sale (e. g. a firewall appliance), > and nobody will find out about that fact. Now you got it! GPL is about forcing people to do what /you/ want and BSD is about letting them do what /they/ want. Let's see if you can guess which one of those licenses is about freedom. Hint: freedom is not defined as forcing people to do what you want. _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
