You don't care about the clarity of the license, or the availability of clear information about what it means, or the fact that the FSF recommends every project that is under the GPL include a complete copy of the GPL in every distributed copy of the code so that it is not inadvertently used by someone that might not know the license. You only care that it's not the license you prefer.
"The more likely scenario is that you start an open source project. Put it under the BSD. Great. Two years later someone comes and says, remember dev X, Y, and Z. They were using some GPL code in your project. We've found at least 50 instances of it."
I've been an Open Source developer for more than a dozen years, on projects in use by millions of people, and under more than a dozen different licenses including BSD and GPL. Some of those projects span hundreds of thousands of lines of code and hundreds of contributors, in both purely commercial and purely non-profit organizations and everything in between. I've never once seen an incident of GPL code being accidentally used in a situation where it caused a license problem. I have seen people try to get away with not following the license, but that's not the same thing, and it was not a misunderstanding or inadvertent.
In short: He (or she) who writes the code, determines the license. Deal with it. If you're using the code it's your responsibility to understand the terms under which it is made available to you. You can't make it the author's responsibility to choose a license that meets your desires. The author of the code presumably has their own desires, and they supercede yours.
He (or she) who writes the code, determines the license.
I don't think anyone disagrees with this. I think some people feel that they're not comfortable with GPL code. It's odd because I've literally had devs at conferences yell at me because I've said, "nah, I'll pass, I don't use GPL". Just as the author of said code determines the license, I'm free to pick software that uses a license I prefer. I'm 100% fine with people using a GPL license. I'm just not fine for me using it in my code.
And I think its fair to say that no one should be abused for using a license of their choosing, and likewise one shouldn't be abused because they don't use software/code that uses a specific license.
>>He (or she) who writes the code, determines the license.
>I don't think anyone disagrees with this.
You picked a minor point that was just a part of his train of thought to get to his real point? Really?
>I think some people feel that they're not comfortable with GPL code. It's odd because I've literally had devs at conferences yell at me because I've said, "nah, I'll pass, I don't use GPL". Just as the author of said code determines the license, I'm free to pick software that uses a license I prefer. I'm 100% fine with people using a GPL license. I'm just not fine for me using it in my code.
You are having an argument that nobody started (except yourself).
>And I think its fair to say that no one should be abused for using a license of their choosing, and likewise one shouldn't be abused because they don't use software/code that uses a specific license.
You are argueing against your own experiences - which are not the topic of this discussion, are not verifiable for us and don't add anything but saying "I didn't like this one time when somebody was rude to me".
Actually, I have no idea what you're trying to say at all.
You literally dedicate half your post to this issue. Your first large paragraph is about me "prefering a license". Then you go on to give your OS qualifications. Then your conclusion is this point.
Here's a hint. If it's a "minor point" don't open with it and then conclude with "In short:" -- and finish it off with the same point. Whatever.
You're having a conversation with two different people. I dedicated half of my first paragraph to the issue. skore is who you're responding to in this comment, who has different opinions (valid ones, but they differ from mine).
I do not think that the author's right to choose their own license is a minor point. It think it's absolutely core to everything about the GPL and licensing and copyright in general. The author's right to determine how their work is used is pretty much the most important point.
And, honestly, in my opinion, and the opinion of the law, it makes all other arguments moot. The law is on the side of the creator of the work, and I believe ethics is on the side of the creator of the work, as well. If the creator of the work wants it to be licensed under the GPL, and you disagree, as far as I'm concerned your only ethical response is to not use the code, or write your own and license it however you see fit, or negotiate with the author of the work you want under a different license. As I've mentioned in other threads, I've sold BSD and commercial licenses of my code in the past, and I currently use a dual-licensed model for my products, and many others have done the same over the years.
One other point I've made elsewhere in this conversation, but I'll make again here: Damned near every flame war about the GPL, which this has obviously devolved into, tends to be not about the clarity of the license or whether it can force people to license their code in ways they didn't want (which is what the original post was about, in case anyone has forgotten). It's simply that some people do not like the GPL and disagree with the FSF and its motives. That's fine. But don't pretend you don't understand the license, don't obfuscate the meaning or capabilities of the license to claim that it can "infect" code or that it is "viral" or that a BSD project can accidentally become GPL. That's just more FUD. You aren't "infected" if you use GPL code without abiding by the terms of the license. You are simply in violation of the license, and you have many means to remedy that situation, and no one is going to force you to release all of your code under the GPL, and no one has any legal method to cause you to do so. Code does not magically become GPL just because you accidentally included some GPL code.
That was the point of the original linked article (which is what we're discussing here, let's not forget), and a point I've tried to make clear all along, in various ways.
You don't care about the clarity of the license, or the availability of clear information about what it means, or the fact that the FSF recommends every project that is under the GPL include a complete copy of the GPL in every distributed copy of the code so that it is not inadvertently used by someone that might not know the license. You only care that it's not the license you prefer.
"The more likely scenario is that you start an open source project. Put it under the BSD. Great. Two years later someone comes and says, remember dev X, Y, and Z. They were using some GPL code in your project. We've found at least 50 instances of it."
I've been an Open Source developer for more than a dozen years, on projects in use by millions of people, and under more than a dozen different licenses including BSD and GPL. Some of those projects span hundreds of thousands of lines of code and hundreds of contributors, in both purely commercial and purely non-profit organizations and everything in between. I've never once seen an incident of GPL code being accidentally used in a situation where it caused a license problem. I have seen people try to get away with not following the license, but that's not the same thing, and it was not a misunderstanding or inadvertent.
In short: He (or she) who writes the code, determines the license. Deal with it. If you're using the code it's your responsibility to understand the terms under which it is made available to you. You can't make it the author's responsibility to choose a license that meets your desires. The author of the code presumably has their own desires, and they supercede yours.