@sbeak @Logical_Error Yes. And the sad truth is, being open source, gpl2, it is still possible to do with it the same evil as iSatan does. :-( We must fight!

[–] sbeak@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I believe BSD uses the permissive BSD license, not the copyleft GPL license. Both are open-source but do it slightly differently.

[–] sbeak@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 day ago

from another comment I made on licenses:

They are needed to tell users and developers what they can do with the project and whether they can change the source code, redistribute it, etc. Having no license by default means others can't look at your code or modify it in any way, as the terms on how to do so are not defined!

There are several licenses that are used for open-source projects. Generally, they are grouped as either permissive licenses (like MIT) or copyleft/protective licenses (like GPLv3). In a nutshell, permissive licenses gives the developer (or, in the case of commercial use of open-source code, the company) more freedom as the code can be used in any kind of project, including proprietary ones. In contrast, copyleft licenses aim to give users more freedom by ensuring that the code can only be used in projects that also use an open-source license.

There are other elements to licenses too, like how code used should be attributed, whether you are allowed to fork the project, additional copyleft restrictions for SaaS applications (see AGPLv3), loosening of copyleft restrictions (see LGPLv3), etc.

[–] peterhorvath@mastodon.de 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

@sbeak Problem of the BSD license is that it can be forked and closed... macos was once a BSD...

[–] sbeak@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Yes, that was my point, sorry if it wasn't clear. You mentioned GPL, which is copyleft (which tries to resolve this issue by ensuring that projects using GPL code also need to be open source)