GPL works well to protect the freedom of its users.
As do the BSD and especially(?) the Apache Software License.
What possibly can be said in favour of GPL is that it:
* make the code more resistant to forks, esp. less free
* opens an option for the original author of code to do dual-licensing
* provides an opportunity for the authors to prevent certain uses of the code
Case in point : there is nothing in either the ASL, BSD or MIT that allows you to go back and make already licensed code less free. The original authors can choose to license their new or existing code under another license as well, as can coders using GPL.
Personally I would be happy if everyone could stop pretending that GPL is more free or respects users more, - as I have tried to show above it does not.
There might still be ideological and even practical reasons to use GPL, but it is NOT more free, possibly less.
As do the BSD and especially(?) the Apache Software License.
Suppose someone forked BSD kernel, modified it heavily over years and made a closed source product of out of it (you don't actually need to suppose it anyway). Users get zero out of four freedoms they would have gotten with GPL.
As a user, you now can't freely run the kernel on multiple computers as you like, you are not allowed to investigate what the binary blob actually does on your hardware, you're not allowed to give a copy to your friend, and you're not allowed to make patches and redistribute.
So while this worked very well for some company and allowed them to launch a series of products in series quickly (which translated into billions in revenues), it screwed all of the four basic freedoms for all (paying) users.
Now tell me, how exactly is BSD license going to protect my rights as a user here?
As for the original developers of BSD, I'm guessing they might have been happier if that company contributed (some of) their changes back. Or maybe a few bucks from the billions of dollars they made.
BSD license basically gave the company to screw everyone else, both end users and original developers. Only a free software license such as GPL protects them both.
make the code more resistant to forks, esp. less free
GPL doesn't have any restriction on forks. At all. Re-licensing and forking are orthogonal concepts.
opens an option for the original author of code to do dual-licensing
That doesn't have anything to do with GPL itself.
provides an opportunity for the authors to prevent certain uses of the code
It guarantees that four freedoms mentioned in the above link are protected.
As do the BSD and especially(?) the Apache Software License.
Nope. As a user of a closed source program built on top of BSD or ASL license I certainly don't have the rights I would have had if the bottom layers were GPL. BSD, ASL allows the programmer to (type) cast away the freedoms, they can inherit in private, enjoying the benefits but giving nothing back.
Precisely my point, BSD or ASL allows one to inherit free but make the final product non-free. The end user (incidentally, also the original author) gets cut out of it.
iOS and MacOS users face huge barriers to hacking their devices because the BSD license didn't even attempt to ensure their freedom to do so. To publish code without copyleft is to donate your work to the parasites of the industry.
Comments
As do the BSD and especially(?) the Apache Software License.
What possibly can be said in favour of GPL is that it:
* make the code more resistant to forks, esp. less free
* opens an option for the original author of code to do dual-licensing
* provides an opportunity for the authors to prevent certain uses of the code
Case in point : there is nothing in either the ASL, BSD or MIT that allows you to go back and make already licensed code less free. The original authors can choose to license their new or existing code under another license as well, as can coders using GPL.
Personally I would be happy if everyone could stop pretending that GPL is more free or respects users more, - as I have tried to show above it does not.
There might still be ideological and even practical reasons to use GPL, but it is NOT more free, possibly less.
Suppose someone forked BSD kernel, modified it heavily over years and made a closed source product of out of it (you don't actually need to suppose it anyway). Users get zero out of four freedoms they would have gotten with GPL.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
As a user, you now can't freely run the kernel on multiple computers as you like, you are not allowed to investigate what the binary blob actually does on your hardware, you're not allowed to give a copy to your friend, and you're not allowed to make patches and redistribute. So while this worked very well for some company and allowed them to launch a series of products in series quickly (which translated into billions in revenues), it screwed all of the four basic freedoms for all (paying) users.
Now tell me, how exactly is BSD license going to protect my rights as a user here?
As for the original developers of BSD, I'm guessing they might have been happier if that company contributed (some of) their changes back. Or maybe a few bucks from the billions of dollars they made.
BSD license basically gave the company to screw everyone else, both end users and original developers. Only a free software license such as GPL protects them both.
GPL doesn't have any restriction on forks. At all. Re-licensing and forking are orthogonal concepts.
That doesn't have anything to do with GPL itself.
It guarantees that four freedoms mentioned in the above link are protected.
Nope. As a user of a closed source program built on top of BSD or ASL license I certainly don't have the rights I would have had if the bottom layers were GPL. BSD, ASL allows the programmer to (type) cast away the freedoms, they can inherit in private, enjoying the benefits but giving nothing back.
Bam. Got you. You, and the Mac users mentioned in the other comment weren't using open source software.
Users of the original software are still protected.
You wouldn't anyway. They'd just use something else.
Precisely my point, BSD or ASL allows one to inherit free but make the final product non-free. The end user (incidentally, also the original author) gets cut out of it.
How do you define freedom w.r.t. software? Based on your examples, you differ from Stallman, but it is unclear to me how you see it.
more restrictions => the less freedom.
Which means liberal licenses pr def are more free.
iOS and MacOS users face huge barriers to hacking their devices because the BSD license didn't even attempt to ensure their freedom to do so. To publish code without copyleft is to donate your work to the parasites of the industry.
iOS and Mac users willingly chose shiny over free. They never had a free OS, merely one built on some free components.
Re parasites: do you mean people and companies who use OSS without giving (enough) back, like most of us?