Why I use a BSD-style license.
Free usually refers to the fact that something has not constraints and
restrictions as well as it does not cost money.
The GPL is not free!
People referring to OSS usually refer to so-called GPL'ed software. GPL is to Open Source what the money is to capitalism ... this may seem so.
How do I come to this (strange?) conclusion? Well, read the definition of "free"
above and try to think about it. The GPL states, that the source to a software has
to be open for anybody at any time and so on. Looks free. It also ensures that the
rights of the developer of the software are granted to the next user of the source.
This is to ensure that anyone following the original author has the same rights.
No restrictions, yet. But now if I am a developer in some company - I find that
cool piece of code out there and it is under GPL. Great Open Source ... open and
free and all. But if you read on in the GPL, you will find, that follow-ups of the
GPL'ed software have to be under GPL, too. So as a developer in some company one
would not be able to use it since the employer would not like to see 'his' product
under the GPL ... "open" to everyone.
BSDL is free ...!
The BSD license allows anyone else to use my code (even in closed-source) as long as they pertain my copyright notice in the source code.
You now might say ... "ooh, what a moron, he gives away for free what took him
hours or days to develop ... and then he even allows others to make money with it".
Actually this is why I use a BSD-style license instead of the restrictive GPL. I want to share my efforts to help progress ...
To not insult anybody ... there are many more non-restrictive OSS-licenses ;)