Untitled

...

The goal of GPL is to give you (the user) freedom and to give rights to the author.
Permissive licenses are only focused on the user freedom with complete disregard to the rights of the author.

The ironic bit kicks in when you realize that the same people criticizing GPL for "duh I can't do X therefore it's not free!" are usually interested in open-source licensing models purely because their goal is to take someone's work, profit from it without giving anything in return.
That's why so many businesses hail GPL as very business unfriendly.
Because me stealing shit from you is okay, but you stealing shit from me is bad.
also known as: the negro logic.

...so

bsd has less restrictions which is slightly more beneficial for people who want to put bsd licensed software into a proprietary package but comes at the expense of users and original developers no longer being able to see the modifications made to the source and not being able to modify and redistribute it further themselves, while this may seem more 'free' it is only possible due to legal enforcement draconian copyright laws
gpl on the other hand places slight restrictions on what you can do with the code, namely that further modifications have to be distributed as gpl also, but this comes with the benefit that end users and developers can access modifications other people have made and distributed which builds a greater pool of public contributions to the software, while this is evidently 'less' free than bsd it is consistent in that it works without any need for state copyright laws - that's not to say you have recourse when someone breaks the license but is consistent with stallman's belief that proprietary software is harmful and that free (libre) software is liberating

basically, bsd is great for code you don't care about but don't think projects like the linux kernel would have been compatible if licensed under bsd

>I don't like my software being used and modified by companies that don't give back
>uses GPL instead of Affero so companies like Facebook and twitter can use and modify my software without giving back

Permissive license only works for giant corps like Google/Apple/Facebook. Look at what happened to OpenSSL. Look at what happened to Minix. BSD is for cucks

...

What's bad about Minix being used?

There is absolutely no point in "permissive" licenses existing.
Just use public domain if you want no legal protections on your software.

Genuine question: I'm going to be releasing a library shortly and want to license it under WTFPL because I'm an edgelord. Is there any (legal) reason I shouldn't use it over similar licenses?

>CC-BY is useless because CC0 exists

The true edgelord way is:
All Rites Reversed - reprint what you like

hail discordia

Anarchy vs Constitutional Freedom
Pro tip. One of those is for edgy 13 year olds.

excerpt from fsf.org
>This is a lax permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL.
>We do not recommend this license. If you want a lax permissive license for a small program, we recommend the X11 license. A larger program usually ought to be copyleft; but if you are set on using a lax permissive license for one, we recommend the Apache 2.0 license since it protects users from patent treachery.

But you already said you're an edgelord so I don't see why not. While silly it's still a valid license

if you want to be an edgelord there's nothing wrong with wtfpl but you could also public domain it outright
for future reference though gpl is awful for libraries and you should use lgpl instead

I've heard that WTFPL can get you fucked over by patent trolls or something unlike other seemingly equivalent licenses.

the GPL isn't the most permissive license, no, but it's restrictions are focused purely on stopping code from being restricted
it does seem ironic, though

I think the confusion comes from the poor "marketing" (if you can call it this way) strategies of FSF.
GPL is not about freedom (as FSF and Stallman claim) but about rights.

The "four essential freedoms" should've been called "four essential inalienable rights" but I think the term "freedom" just sells better.

Intel ME

Would exist with or without Minix.

At least don't make it easier.

Intel could've used Linux.
It's under GPLv2, so making modification impossible is still allowed.

it's possible to make software on the hardware unmodifiable, but they'd still need to release the sources of changes they made

So what? You can't make use of it to modify what you're running. The whole point of GNU and FSF.

yes, which is why they made gplv3, to avoid this "tivoization", named after the famous case of Tivo making hardware with gplv2 code that couldn't be modified

but people would know exactly what bullshit they were pulling which is slightly less good for them than if people only have a general idea of what bullshit they're pulling

Not really.
They can just put the bullshit parts in separate programs.