As a pure user (someone who isn't going to modify and redistribute the software), I see no difference in freedom between BSD and GPL licensed software—I am just as able to download, install and run FreeBSD as Ubuntu. I can even burn a stack of DVDs of either to hand out to my friends.
The fact someone else can fork FreeBSD and start selling OppressionCorpBSD doesn't change this at all. Sure, I can't hand out free copies of OppressionCorpBSD, but that doesn't hinder my use of FreeBSD any more than the existence of Windows does. (And I do love my freedom to not use Windows!)
Neither license prevents the existence of proprietary software, but the existence of proprietary software doesn't force me to use it.
It's the modify-and-redistribute case that's interesting, which is why I focus on that. (Why would you care about having the source code at all if you don't plan to change it?) The nice thing about open source is it lets you blur the lines between user and developer—it lets you change existing software, then give that new version to anyone who wants it.
Even as a mostly user sharing minor tweaks, the GPL limits my options—I can only incorporate code I can legally distribute under the GPL. That doesn't hurt me when my patch is entirely my own original code, but it does hurt me if I want to re-use code from a (4-clause) BSD-licensed project, or from any other GPL-incompatible license.
The GPL envisions a world where all software is GPL'd. Simpler licenses co-exist in a world where a lot of software isn't GPL'd.
> The fact someone else can fork FreeBSD and start selling OppressionCorpBSD doesn't change this at all. Sure, I can't hand out free copies of OppressionCorpBSD, but that doesn't hinder my use of FreeBSD any more than the existence of Windows does.
The point of the GPL is that your use of FreeBSD wouldn't be hindered today, but might be hindered in the future.
Whether you accept the possibility of that scenario as valid or not is up to you, of course, but it's not simply a theoretical threat (after all, RMS witnessed it happen before his very eyes in the days of Lisp machines).
In the defense of the original poster, he does provide a reason to want the source code without changing it: "[I] can vet it to make sure the vendor has not put tracking software/other malicious code inside".
(Of course, if the vendor did that I'm sure they'd just hand me code that didn't match the malicious binary.)
True, but you can inspect BSD-licensed source just as freely as GPL'd code too.
Not that that's much use against a malicious distributor, who could disguise malicious code so that it passes inspection: http://underhanded.xcott.com.
(Oh, $DEITY I don't want to get involved in another BSD vs. GPL thread, but I just can't help myself...)
You can't inspect the source of something BSD-derived that's distributed as a binary (which I suspect is the point of the parent poster).
Interestingly the GPL sort-of stipulates that the recipient of the software should be able to build the software from source. This would allow a sufficiently paranoid recipient to inspect all the source and compile said source.
(Ken Thompson's caveat notwithstanding.)
Paranoid me is stuck between a rock and a hard place—I don't want to have to trust a ton of third parties with my security, but I'm unlikely to be able to ensure it on my own and still benefit from modern technology.
That's not just because I depend on proprietary software—frankly, there's no way I could audit every line of code that runs on a Linux system that solves the problems I want it to solve, and even if I could, it's almost guaranteed I'll still miss something critical in the process.
But that's another topic. If I think it'll buy me something, I'm free to audit the source to both GPL and BSD-licensed software. I can't audit the source to proprietary derivatives of BSD-licensed software, but if I choose not to run it that doesn't hurt me any more than it hurts me that Windows continues to exist despite my refusal to use it.
In other words, I'm still free to make choices that preserve my freedom, no matter what another group chooses to do with their derivative works of software I run.
The fact someone else can fork FreeBSD and start selling OppressionCorpBSD doesn't change this at all. Sure, I can't hand out free copies of OppressionCorpBSD, but that doesn't hinder my use of FreeBSD any more than the existence of Windows does. (And I do love my freedom to not use Windows!)
Neither license prevents the existence of proprietary software, but the existence of proprietary software doesn't force me to use it.
It's the modify-and-redistribute case that's interesting, which is why I focus on that. (Why would you care about having the source code at all if you don't plan to change it?) The nice thing about open source is it lets you blur the lines between user and developer—it lets you change existing software, then give that new version to anyone who wants it.
Even as a mostly user sharing minor tweaks, the GPL limits my options—I can only incorporate code I can legally distribute under the GPL. That doesn't hurt me when my patch is entirely my own original code, but it does hurt me if I want to re-use code from a (4-clause) BSD-licensed project, or from any other GPL-incompatible license.
The GPL envisions a world where all software is GPL'd. Simpler licenses co-exist in a world where a lot of software isn't GPL'd.