the GNU GPL is a Communist ideal!!! (LOL)

[ataradov]

I don't get how is BSD licence related to any of this.

I personally use BSD licence, since it matches exactly what I want to have:
1. Share the code, and let people use it for whatever they want. Including closed and commercial products. If someone can make money off may code - go ahead, I sure can't. I do have faith in humanity, and believe that if someone benefited from what I have done, they will contribute back. One way or another.
2. I want the credit. Because this is the only form of "payment" i can realistically extract from my projects.
3. I don't want my name to be used to promote the products. I want to avoid advertisements like "This nuclear bomb is guaranteed to destroy the world if detonated, since it is powered by the very reliable code made by Alex Taradov".

That's all. No politics, no nothing.

[legacy]

I don't get how is BSD licence related to any of this.

if you happen to work in a community/forum/whatever with a jerk admin who tries to imposes his stupid way, you can show him the door about collaboration, and the BSD license allows you to close the source, and just keep releasing binaries.

I am frankly tired by this jerks on the internet, really tired.

[ataradov]

Ah, ok. This is not really a problem for me. I don't contribute much to other projects.

[legacy]

Besides, the BSD license also protects you when your code implies you had signed for any documentation under Confidential Disclosure Agreements, e.g. datasheet for a chip, which is a must-have when you are writing an hw-emulator. There is your name on the legal piece of paper, and it's all on your responsibility, and if the admin is a complete jerk, you can close the source, and just keep releasing binaries, and no lawyer can touch you even if the jerk-admin wants to revenge.

The human nature must not be underestimated.

[sokoloff]

Besides, the BSD license also protects you when your code implies you had signed for any documentation under Confidential Disclosure Agreements, e.g. datasheet for a chip, which is a must-have when you are writing an hw-emulator. There is your name on the legal piece of paper, and it's all on your responsibility, and if the admin is a complete jerk, you can close the source, and just keep releasing binaries, and no lawyer can touch you even if the jerk-admin wants to revenge.

The human nature must not be underestimated.

The power of a judge to compel discovery must also not be underestimated. "Haha, it's closed source now!" is not going to be any kind of effective defense against a lawsuit asking for discovery.

[legacy]

The human nature must not be underestimated

The power of a judge to compel discovery must also not be underestimated. "Haha, it's closed source now!" is not going to be any kind of effective defense against a lawsuit asking for discovery.

LOL, that's true, they can always get and quote you in a court on a technicality

The best option ever would be about giving yourself a new girlfriend experienced litigation graduate in legal studies so she can defend you in a court (or bring you a basket of oranges ... in case ... you end got in prison) ... however, the BSD-license is able to close the source(1) while it's still opensource for the binary, which is a good thing to make people confused, which is also good to discourage someone from doing something bad like making you stand up in a court, cause, in this case, you can double quote him 

(1) for which you may violate the CDA just by providing reserved information through your notes on the code, and through the code itself. That's no good.

[cdev]

Hmmm..

https://www.law.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Stumberg-Guide-to-GATS-Dom-Reg-5-19-10.pdf

The devil is in the details.

"GATS & non-discriminatory measures
When adopted in 1994, GATS included trade rules to prohibit quantitative limits on
market access

 and prohibit discrimination.

  Negotiators could not agree on how to deal
with non-
discriminatory
 measures that affect trade in services.  Hence, they called for
negotiations in Article VI:4 to ensure that regulations are: “(a) based on objective and
transparent criteria, such as competence and the ability to  supply the service; (b) not
more burdensome than necessary to ensure the quality of the service; and (c) in the case
of licensing procedures, not in themselves a restriction on the supply of the service.”

[sokoloff]

In that context, licensing refers to business/trade licensing, not software/copyright license, IMO.

[cdev]

I wouldn't be so certain, in fact I think they explicitly say over and over that the words in these agreements are intended to be given the widest possible interpretation, taking them in plain language meaning.

Read Sturmberg's paper on domestic regulation I posted the link to. Its very good.

Also, because the goal of these things is literally to remake the entire world in a way that would normally require a war without firing a shot, I think the chances of it being so narrowly interpreted in this context are very very low..

Everything is twisted around into meanings nobody who doesn't understand their intrinsic logic understands, which is practically everybody, almost nobody understands their logic, thats the plan, thats how they are doing what they are doing. And they are binding in perpetuity. They do an end run around democracy.