Re: Shut it you tedious old windbag
> It's free. It's open source. It's free and open source.
Embed whatever you wish into whatever strikes your fancy, but your statement above is simply not true.
BSD-type licenses do *not* require the publication of source code when distributing binaries. Also, BSD-type license do *not* restrict the license type to Free Only - meaning publication of source code when distributing binaries - when creating a "derived work".
You can combine source code licensed under Apache 2.0 with source code licensed under 2-clause or 3-clause BSD with source code licensed under MIT, and create a derived work. When doing so, you would not be violating the terms of either license.
You cannot do that with GPL-licensed code, and the GPL - either version 2 or 3 - is very clear and explicit about it.
Some software licensed under GPL - for example the GNU C++ Standard Library - provides explicit exemptions to the GPL derived aggregation work rule. Meaning the Library explicitly allows its consumers to create a derived, aggregate work, and distribute binaries for it, but waives the source code publication requirement. That is because the C++ Standard Library contains tens of thousands of lines of code which are compiled directly into the derived work - namely template instantiations. This is not the same with runtime dynamic linking, which would benefit from the library exemption rule under the GPL.
This is why software such as Subversion - which is written in C++ - can be licensed under Apache 2.0 without violating GPLv3.
"Free" in FOSS does not mean "zero money cost". It means "free of encumberances". Meaning, you *must* publish the source code when distributing binaries.
Perhaps you should read the text of these licenses, and try understaing what they mean, before making statements about their contents and intent. I pity those who rely on your licensing advice.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
