|
Top-level
 The only BSD license apologia that made sense to me was #OpenBSD's attitude of, "We'd rather the corporations use our good code and not give back than come up with their own crappy solutions." In that view, its a service to the community at large to help the security of commercial software. Not saying I agree, really, but it has *some* logic, rather than complaining that the GPL is a one-way street (and somehow commercialism isn't). 4 comments
Ah, I see. Just curious why you use permissive licenses, then? I mean, I use MIT, but I'm just spitting out ~100 line shell scripts here and there, puttering around and having fun. If I invested months in a project, I'd probably want it to be strongly copylefted.  @RL_Dane it depends on the project and my goals. Licenses are a tool, and different tools are suited to different purposes. https://discourse.writefreesoftware.org/t/what-is-your-current-go-to-license/60/6?u=ddevault |
Gregory's Server
@RL_Dane indeed. I don't think that copyleft is the only answer; I see room for permissive licenses and I use them myself for many of my projects. I'm simply refuting the common bad analysis of the "freedom" associated with each.