freebsd at edvax.de
Tue Jun 19 18:52:36 UTC 2012
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 19:54:45 +0200 (CEST), Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> anyway - can someone point me an article about explaining in human
> language (contrary to lawyer language) why GPLv3 is more limiting in
> reality over v2 .
> Does GPLv3 does force programs you compile with gcc to be GPLed?
As far as I know, the main difference is that the GPLv3 is
often called a "viral license". Software linking against v3
libraries and so maybe programs compiled by a v3 compiler
will have - according to the license - to be released as
v3 too. Code that is v3 once cannot become "something different"
(either v2, BSDL or closed).
GPLv2 does have fewer restrictions, emphasizing the freedom
of the developer: It's not okay to turn v2 programs into
closed source. However, it is okay to make derivates from
it as long as the derivates are also published (contributed
back). GPLv3 also has this requirement.
GPL protects the freedom of the programmer who licensed his
code under those licenses: He wants it to be free for use,
but not to be turned into closed source products.
A programmer who does not want to raise this barrier will
typically use the BSD license which is "more free".
BSDL in opposite is often criticized a "rape me license".
It explicitely (!) allows creating derivates in a closed
source manner. This means that parts of BSD licensed code
can be a key component in a proprietary closed source
product that is for sale (e. g. a firewall appliance),
and nobody will find out about that fact.
WP has a nice comparison:
All those licenses do _not_ allow to steal copyright!
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
More information about the freebsd-questions