• bss03@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    3 months ago

    I read a story of someone that contributed to a BSD project, including fixes over some period of time, but later they ended up having to use a proprietary UNIX for work, that included their code, in a an intermediate, buggy state, but they were legally forbidden from applying their own bug fixes!

    At the very least the GPL guarantees that if I am ever downstream of myself, I has fix my own damn mistakes and don’t have to suffer them.

    I am still willing to contribute to BSD stuff, but vastly prefer something like the AGPLv3.

    • Suzune@ani.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      So it’s an argument against restrictive licenses? The more freedom the better? I mean Unix in this case had a too restrictive license?

        • Suzune@ani.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Read above please. You cannot import GPL code into BSD licensed code without restricting the code distribution. In the other direction, you can do it and just add a notice about the license. It does not add restrictions to the distribution. Otherwise Linux distributions wouldn’t even have OpenSSH in base install images.

      • bss03@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        3 months ago

        It’s an argument against a license that permits relicensing under a more restrictive license. (E.g. BSD)

        • Suzune@ani.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          Of other software, yes. For example Linux distributions can use the BSD or MIT licensed code without any problems.

          But it does not allow to remove the license from the software.

          On the other hand GPL code cannot be imported into BSD code without introducing restrictions.