Answers
GPL - 46
I guesssed.
I'm smart !
spreads like a disease from tiniest code fragment through whole project - whenever such an inclusion is decided to be required
it is the most restrictive licence to protect trully free software
Because you are forced to license you're patches and additional work under the GPL
Does not allow for commercial use.
you can't use GPL code into NO-GPL products
GPL does not allow the code to be used in proprietary projects, while the other two do.
The GPL significantly restricts freedoms of use and modification, as well as being viral and drastically limiting what external code can be used.
Evident: You are not free to make it non-free.
If i modify software of someone else, I have to release the code (given I release the binary). The GPL restricts my options: I have to do it where for a BSD/MIT app, I can keep the modifications to myself.
copyleft
Because it places additional obligations on the use of GPL'd software.
it limits the uses for the program
You only have one option when using this license.
.
Specially because GPLv3, imposes some issues and rectrictions which are overly complex, regarding the use of software with embedded systems and the use of data. It enforces the definition of Software Freedom that the FSF has, but at the expense of the more ecclectic, less discirmative, permissive licenses lice MIT and BSD. Like some people who prefer de use of permissive licenses, GPL, specially its latest version, is VIRAL.
It requires u to release source code of derivitive works
Because it stops jerks from taking pieces of OSS and repacking them in order to make money from other people's work. Also, because it pushes the community to release further OSS if they use GPL software.
Because the Gnu GPL forces everyone to program free software, while the BSD and MIT licenses allow everyone to choose what to do with the software.
does not allow use without source distribution
GPL has the most extensive copyleft parts.
Open Souce Open Mind, I want a total free software
GPL makes copyleft and publication mandatory, which is not the case with the other two
enslaves future developers to make their creations under a viral license designed to harm those who wish to require compensation for their work
Its too much protective the licence terms and four freedoms.
Requirement of same license redistribution.
Forces people to share their code. I'd rather use the NewBSD License.
GPL = Evil
enforcing copyleft
GPL forbids distributing derivative works on licenses that aren't compatible with GPL. BSD and MIT don't.
They require you to keep your source open.
It requires you to give your work away for free. That's it. If I the work I get nothing in return.
GPL takes away some freedoms. Neither BSD nor MIT restrict the software user by placing specific rules on how the software can be used.
Because the GPL is a virus.
Must redistribute source with binaries. Makes other linked programs GPL (viral).
It makes the most explicit demands of the three, hence placing greater burdens on those using it
GNU cult...
With GPL you may need an attorney if you do something wrong. BSD and MIT are permissive.
Uhh because it is, jeez
It forces you to release your work if it links to another. IE: some project X does a task, then I decide to incorporate project X into my project Z. GPL requires me to make available the source code not just for project X but also mine for project Z.
Choice of distributing
The GPL is dumb. It restricts companies from making derivatives of the project, which essentially limits the programs g talent to amateurs.
You must re-license any derivative work under the GPL
Copy left
GPL requires that you have to submit changes to the code as well as retain the copyright notices, after redistributing it or creating a derivative work. Whereas the BSD and MIT licenses only require to retain the copyright, when redistributing either in source code or binary form.
BSD - 6
From an end user's perspective it powers a lot of proprietary software that doesn't give the users any freedoms.
GPL mandates the source developed around the open-source code must be open-sourced. That is least restrictive in terms of source code. The others allow for closed and proprietary derivative code.
For freedom
More restriction
Because BSD was originally developed to be closed source.
Because it sucks, its the fake free software.
MIT - 4
I like this license because it is short and easy to read and understand.
Because it can be modified to suit specific needs, it has the potential to be more restrictive than the other two.
Because you do a very poor job of explaining this. This is not helpful at all, so I found out afterwards that I had made the wrong selection by reading on StackOverflow.
Capitalism sucks.
