• Suzune@ani.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    So it’s an argument against restrictive licenses? The more freedom the better? I mean Unix in this case had a too restrictive license?

    • Richard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      What? GPL does not restrict freedom, it ensures its continued existence.

      • Suzune@ani.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Read above please. You cannot import GPL code into BSD licensed code without restricting the code distribution. In the other direction, you can do it and just add a notice about the license. It does not add restrictions to the distribution. Otherwise Linux distributions wouldn’t even have OpenSSH in base install images.

    • bss03@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s an argument against a license that permits relicensing under a more restrictive license. (E.g. BSD)

      • Suzune@ani.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        Of other software, yes. For example Linux distributions can use the BSD or MIT licensed code without any problems.

        But it does not allow to remove the license from the software.

        On the other hand GPL code cannot be imported into BSD code without introducing restrictions.