Why should derived work have limitations placed on the owner of the derived works?
It's up to developer of the original work to decide which type of behavior to allow based on the license.
The GPL only limits the freedom of the developer borrowing the original work if they decide to take the option of distributing the work, whether it was modified or not.
Another question would be, why should the developer who borrowed someone else's work consider himself the owner if he simply modifies it?
Or, another way to state it, why should a developer allow another developer to take ownership of his work when he's already allowed that other developer to benefit from it by allowing that other developer to access the work, to study the work, to use the work, and to modify the work to fit a need? Now, the other developer also wants ownership of it because of a modification that he was allowed to make? For the original developer's openness, in reciprocation the other developer wants to lock out the original developer, and all other developers, from modifications to the work that the original developer might find useful?
It all depends on the type of behavior the original developer wants to allow by the license he chooses. If he wants to encourage selfishness, he can choose the BSD, if wants to encourage reciprocity he can choose the GPL.
It stifles the ability of people to take well tested code and build commercial applications with it.
I suspect this is an unfounded belief. I do find examples of GPL'd works successfully being built as commercial applications while continuing under the GPL. Please cite actual examples of how this supposed stifling process has affected actual applications if the license requires that the freedom to access modified changes continue to be passed on to later developers as under the GPL. Otherwise, your assertion remains a myth.
If a developer prefers to close source code that they take so that it will now have a Proprietary license, they only have to find another developer willing to provide the code to them on a charity basis, such as under the BSD, where there is no requirement for reciprocity and the charity recipient can treat the code given to them as their own by locking out the original developer and later developers from evolving their modifications. Of course, now that the code is closed, the benefits of Open Source can no longer be applied to the closed modifications since other Open Source developers cannot view, test, or improve the modified code any longer.
Contrary to GPL zealot indoctrination, not ALL software will be developed for free.
I haven't heard or read that claim and couldn't find examples. Is this further myth making? Please provide examples, as I would be interested to read their reasoning on why they expect that all software will be developed for free. I may respond back to them with additional queries on the logic of that position.
BSD people get this, and would rather that commercial software use well tested, robust code for the parts of the software that are non-industry specific, and spend their time focused writing on software that DOESN'T already exist.
I'm not sure as to why commercial software is being discussed on a topic regarding the characteristics of Open Source and Free Software licenses, since commercial applications can be of just about any license, whether BSD, GPL or Proprietary.
Is the assumption that commercial software should always be under a Proprietary license? And, is a Proprietary licensed commercial software supposed to be in some way a superior product? If that is the case, then shouldn't commercial software always rely on Proprietary licensed commercial software components to make the best product?
I don't follow that assumption myself since my belief is that Proprietary licensed code, if closed source, is less likely to be as well tested and as well built as a popular Open Source equivalent over time, and therefore Open Source code should always be the norm for all applications, including commercial software.
BSD people get this, and would rather that commercial software use well tested, robust code for the parts of the software that are non-industry specific
Commercial software can use BSD, GPL, or Proprietary licensed code for that, assuming that Proprietary licensed code can also be as equally well tested and robust as popular Open Source code over time.
and spend their time focused writing on software that DOESN'T already exist.
Most software is written because a variation that is needed doesn't exist. There are of course many clones as people try to learn how to make an application for a particular platform or prefer one under a particular license depending on the behavior they want to allow.
As the BSD license is not as much used as the GPL license, I don't see as much software functionality created under the BSD that doesn't already exist in some form under another license, whether Open Source, Free Software or Proprietary. For example, the comparison with GPL and BSD is 10 to 1.
Perhaps developers who prefer the other licenses, such as the GPL or a Proprietary license, simply take the BSD code and re-license it? I don't know. But, since the BSD allows this, maybe the original BSD code doesn't receive the necessary evolutionar feedback to maintain parity with the GPL'd or Proprietary licensed modifications?
Since the BSD allows the developer the option to close the code, a developer who instead prefers the reciprocity of the GPL might re-license their changes to allow the code to evolve in a well tested and robust Open Source form as long as the modifying developers choose the option to distribute the derived work. But, that's just supposition, as I don't know why fewer people use the BSD in the first place except that more people may prefer the source code reciprocity of the GPL as opposed to the source code charity of the BSD and the selfishness that the BSD allows in later developers. More developers may instinctively sense the fair play that the GPL allows and are drawn to it and are not as inclined towards charity as allowed by the BSD.
= 9J =