@clacke @Di4na Basically, if you want me to deal with boring problems that I'd never ever dream of touching in my free time, then yes, pay me, and I'll get those working for you, wincing at the stupidity of the problem in terms of the bigger world. But if it's for me, I am going to write it the way I want, to solve the problems I (and positive people I respect from experience) want, and make the code as good as I can make it, which can take up to 10x longer to do than with commercial code.

@nicemicro it's corporations who want to avoid gpl code because that imposes obligations. Developers not in #OpenBSD who care about survival of #FreeSoftware should use licences that enforce code survival and growth. There's a reason bsds are now a blip of a percent of total os now and linux is in and on everything. You have to force sharing and giving back when dealing with the sociopathic corporate sector. Anything else is naive. Except for special cases like openssh, libressl etc.

@nicemicro Any company that avoids #gpl is openly admitting they want to take without giving back. Those are not desirable partners long term as has been proved over and over. Nor are they reliable or trustworthy. Every gpl project has a possible long term future builtin and every non enforced sharing license project can go like a poof of smoke because it has no true code permanence protection beyond last public commit. Like rhel is trying to do while stealing our code to use their stupid word

@nicemicro to me the core mindbug is open source. Vs #FreeSoftware. If you fall for that trap then one license is as good as another so you'll burn out once reality sets in. I make free software to help the bits of free software ecosystem I can. Free software of course is open source by definition but as ibm-redhat recently showed us the contrary is not necessarily true. Since I've never had any interest in doing unpaid work for billion dollar corporations I used gpl from first day I found it.

@clacke @Di4na In terms of hiring, I think I follow with Thomas D, I am NOT a supplier. I have zero interest in damaging my code to make it work around bugs created by a billion dollar corporation (yes, looking at ibm-redhat). Nor am I interested in their problem set unless it directly matches what I want the software to do for its users. And no, corporations are NOT users, they are legal fictions assembled to funnel capital, and generate profit. And I don't volunteer for that, at any price.

@nicemicro valid use cases for bsd type licenses: single project (apache,nginx,openssh) where priority is get that tech into everything. Outside those you are working for free for corporations who will never give back. Truly freed code survives because you can't steal it without obligation. This stopped being a debate years ago:
#Gpl: linux,libreoffice,khtml>applewebkit>blink
Bsd/mit: Bsds,openoffice,mozilla

It's funny to see people pretend this is a debate when success of gpl transparent.