GPL3 cracks down on TiVo style lockdowns:
Here is an encrypted binary and source code. No existing computer will run either without a secret key you cannot have.
AGPL cracks down on Google style lockdowns:
You can't have binaries or sources, but you can use this GPL software as long as you agree to a long and ever changing EULA that includes clauses for surveillance, binding arbitration and worse.
BSD licenses are only freer for developers, not for end users. The F in FOSS refers to the users' freedoms, not the developer's / vendor's freedoms.
Here is a device running Linux and a proprietary binary. The proprietary binary will stop working if you modify and reinstall Linux.
This isn't prevented even with GPLv3. Also even GPLv2 has an implied right to install and run modified versions.
https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017... https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/25/install-gplv2/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-t...
PS: I love how one gets flagged for expressing an opinion. Public lynching and censorship rather than debate.
I think it's basically the software equivalent of the Paradox of Tolerance.
I suspect by 'free', GNU licenses aren't really referring to user-freedom more so source-code-freedom.
It all depends on the developer's objectives, no doubt.
The additional freedom that BSD licences provide is freedom for developers to do what they like, not anything to do with users.
(The biggest practical advantage of a BSD licence for most developers is that if you use one when publishing your code while you work for a company, you yourself will still be able to reuse that code after you leave.)