Answers
GPL - 46
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.
Copy left
You must re-license any derivative work under the GPL
The GPL is dumb. It restricts companies from making derivatives of the project, which essentially limits the programs g talent to amateurs.
Choice of distributing
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.
Uhh because it is, jeez
With GPL you may need an attorney if you do something wrong. BSD and MIT are permissive.
GNU cult...
It makes the most explicit demands of the three, hence placing greater burdens on those using it
Must redistribute source with binaries. Makes other linked programs GPL (viral).
Because the GPL is a virus.
GPL takes away some freedoms. Neither BSD nor MIT restrict the software user by placing specific rules on how the software can be used.
It requires you to give your work away for free. That's it. If I the work I get nothing in return.
They require you to keep your source open.
GPL forbids distributing derivative works on licenses that aren't compatible with GPL. BSD and MIT don't.
enforcing copyleft
GPL = Evil
Forces people to share their code. I'd rather use the NewBSD License.
Requirement of same license redistribution.
Its too much protective the licence terms and four freedoms.
enslaves future developers to make their creations under a viral license designed to harm those who wish to require compensation for their work
GPL makes copyleft and publication mandatory, which is not the case with the other two
Open Souce Open Mind, I want a total free software
GPL has the most extensive copyleft parts.
does not allow use without source distribution
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.
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.
It requires u to release source code of derivitive works
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.
.
You only have one option when using this license.
it limits the uses for the program
Because it places additional obligations on the use of GPL'd software.
copyleft
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.
Evident: You are not free to make it non-free.
The GPL significantly restricts freedoms of use and modification, as well as being viral and drastically limiting what external code can be used.
GPL does not allow the code to be used in proprietary projects, while the other two do.
you can't use GPL code into NO-GPL products
Does not allow for commercial use.
Because you are forced to license you're patches and additional work under the GPL
it is the most restrictive licence to protect trully free software
spreads like a disease from tiniest code fragment through whole project - whenever such an inclusion is decided to be required
I'm smart !
I guesssed.
BSD - 6
Because it sucks, its the fake free software.
Because BSD was originally developed to be closed source.
More restriction
For freedom
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.
From an end user's perspective it powers a lot of proprietary software that doesn't give the users any freedoms.
MIT - 4
Capitalism sucks.
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.
Because it can be modified to suit specific needs, it has the potential to be more restrictive than the other two.
I like this license because it is short and easy to read and understand.
