Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software
I think this is an important distinction to be aware of.<p>Licenses like the GPL exist for a reason.  And that reason is an attempt to maximize the amount of software that is free.<p>Licenses like the MIT and BSD license exist for a different reason.  And that reason is to give people who want to share what they did on generous terms a way to do so.  And historically this was done in the belief that enlightened users would see it as being in their interest to contribute back.<p>The result was that people who used generous licenses got frustrated that others would come along, use their software, criticize the original author for "not protecting freedom", then create a modified version that the original author was not free to use as they wish!<p>Historically the free software movement was very clearly described with long essays by Stallman.  With the open source marketing campaign, there were essays that people who liked more generous licenses could get behind.  And indeed lots of people began producing free software with no encounter with the ideas that started the free software movement.  The link above was Stallman's response to this.<p>If you understand the conflict, then you can form your own opinion.  Here is mine.<p>When you choose a license, you should choose correctly for what you want to have happen.  Would it outrage you for someone else to take your code, put a pretty GUI on top, sell it, and make millions while you make nothing?  Well then, you shouldn't use a BSD license.  By contrast you shouldn't use the GPL if your response would be, "Bully for them, I had fun and they made the world better."<p>Conversely if someone else used an open source license, DO NOT assume that their motivations are yours.  It is their code with their choice of license chosen for their reasons.  Respect that.