Hacker News Reader

"Bob can incorporate Alice's code without making any changes to his license terms, while Alice would have to change her license terms in order to incorporate Bob's code"

This is an inaccurate way of describing what happens. It buys into an incorrect idea of "GPL as virus". Alice's code remains Alice's, regardless of whether she incorporates Bob's code. Her licensing is unchanged. The combined work has to be distributed according to all licenses that make up that work. That includes the BSD and the GPL licenses. Because the BSD requirements are effectively a subset of the GPLs, and there is no incompatibility between the requirements (i.e., BSD is GPL-compatible), then it's as though everything was under the GPL. But Alice is free to deincorporate Bob's code, and everything is as it was.

The very text you quoted was talking about Alice's ability to make use of Bob's "free" code. Were you not reading what you quoted?

Consider this, also, when thinking about which is "more free":

Which person's code can be used with code that is distributed under a different copyleft license?

Which looks "more free" to the person (perhaps Charlene) who wrote the code under that third license?

But Alice did release her code under BSD...........so she should not really care what Bob does with her. After all, she does not care what Apple, Google or other do with it.

So in this a case of double standards by Alice?

No, I think you skipped the last paragraph of my comment. It's not about how other people use BSD code; it's about the word "free", and the feeling that "you can modify and distribute this only if you accept my terms and restrictions" is perhaps a strange definition of that word.

If humans are "free", why I cannot capture them and sell as slaves? Are they really "free"?

Word "free" has lot of meanings in English language. In my native language, word "free" in context of BSD licensed code should be translated as "svoboda" (fully unrestricted state of something), and in context of GPL licensed code as "volya" (has it own rights, abilities, goals, like free human).

I think this is the best description of free-beer versus free-speech I've ever read. Thank you.

I think that falls apart when you realize that, by using a license identical to the GPL but with all instances of "GPL" replaced by some other term (say, "RCL" for "really cool license"), the code distributed under each license is unusable in projects using the other license. Where's the freedom to cross-pollinate?

So, your post can be summed up by: BSD people don't think that the GNU people should use the word "free."

Uh, yeah.

I guess GNU people are perfectly welcome to use the word "free", but they should stop acting like they're using "free" in some manner that makes the recipient of the code more "free" than less restrictive licenses.

it's about the word "free", and the feeling that "you can modify and distribute this only if you accept my terms and restrictions" is perhaps a strange definition of that word.

Only strange because you're framing the issue with individualism. The GPL was created by a socialist and values social freedom more highly than individual freedom.

The two ideas of freedom are always in contention. Like the freedom to swing your fist wherever you like vs the freedom from getting hit in the face by random people.

BSD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty

GPL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty

I have no idea where you stand on the issue of which is the more "important" definition of freedom, but the way you frame the issue is pretty much spot-on (especially since it perfectly mirrors my own take on the difference, and reinforces my thoughts on what's actually "more free" in both political and software senses of the term).

Those restrictions are intended to preserve others' freedom while cutting individual freedom. That's a Social Contract: we agree to apply some restrictions on our individual freedom to ensure that, overall, freedom stands high.

If Alice lives in a society where murder is permitted, and Bob doesn't, Alice may feel she is "free" whereas Bob is not. From her point of view she can go live with Bob only if she accepts restrictions on what she can do. But Alice is missing the fact that by exercising her right to murder she is depriving others of their rights. And what if Alice herself gets murdered? How "free" would that leave her?

Defining concepts basing ourselves on "points of view" or "feelings" is pseudoscientific, leads to contradictions and is completely useless. So no, I don't think one should decide how free she is by merely substracting the number of things she is allowed to do from the number of things someone else is allowed to do. I'd try to grasp the big picture and figure out which set of rules will lead to a higher number of free and happy people.

That's absurd. Murder? Seriously? Are you really comparing the ability to use code with fewer restrictions with "murder"?

Is "murder" the new "Nazi" or something?

edit: . . . and I'd like to see your statistical evidence for the GPL actually resulting in "more free and happy people". I think the BSD License is a great and subtle fishhook for pulling people into the world of free and open source software, whereas the GPL is a gigantic barbed hook the size of my head with blood and gore dripping off it (at least in the eyes of many businesses), so obvious in its intent and the difficulty of getting unhooked after taking a nibble that many of them may never give it a chance.

In short, I'm not convinced that the GPL helps. Maybe it results in a marginally higher rate of return among those who use the code. Maybe. Then again, maybe it also results in fewer people using the code, and maybe overall that results in a lower rate of return. 50% of 100 isn't as much as 20% of 1000, after all.

I never use GPL'd code in any of my projects, because I publish code under a copyfree license (http://owl.apotheon.org). My code often gets reused in proprietary software for resale -- and I'm happy with that, but the GPL simply cannot exist there.