>> And I prefer my software to remain open no matter who works on it or distributes it. So, I use GPL.
> BSD license accomplishes that just fine. BSD licensed code has been taken, extended, modified and used in proprietary products for decades, and yet the original contribution remains open.
But the modifications might not do, which is what GPL proponents care about. To me, the GPL is like saying "I'll share with you, if you share (your changes) with me".
This is not to say that GPL is better than BSD, or that either is better that a proprietory license; they're each designed to do different things. One might as well argue about whether a car a plane or a boat is the best form of transport.
> But the modifications might not do, which is what GPL proponents care about. To me, the GPL is like saying "I'll share with you, if you share (your changes) with me".
Yes, that's correct. It's not about better or worse at all. It's about a license that fits what you want, as a developer.
Sometimes it varies by project! For instance, a developer who normally uses GPL may choose BSD for a reference implementation of a client program using their API, specifically because commercial products could incorporate the code.
> BSD license accomplishes that just fine. BSD licensed code has been taken, extended, modified and used in proprietary products for decades, and yet the original contribution remains open.
But the modifications might not do, which is what GPL proponents care about. To me, the GPL is like saying "I'll share with you, if you share (your changes) with me".
This is not to say that GPL is better than BSD, or that either is better that a proprietory license; they're each designed to do different things. One might as well argue about whether a car a plane or a boat is the best form of transport.