<story><title>Microsoft: No GPLv3 Software for Windows Phone and Xbox Apps.</title><url>http://jan.wildeboer.net/2011/02/microsoft-absolutely-no-free-software-for-windows-phone-and-xbox-apps/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>btipling</author><text>Exactly. Also GPL style licenses are a virus that while they promote freedom, in reality they take it away. It assumes that people are naturally untrustworthy and thus forces them to act in a way the creators of GPL see as the right way. Because of how the GPL licenses are worded, especially insane versions like the AGPL, everything they touch may be affected negatively.  MIT and BSD style licenses on the other hand assume the best in people, and gives them the real freedom to do with code whatever they want.</text></item><item><author>SimonPStevens</author><text>They aren&apos;t prohibiting &quot;Free Software&quot;, they are prohibiting software that is under a license that requires the distributor to pass certain rights along to the recipient.&lt;p&gt;Hence GPL like licenses that require distribution of source code, and that you grant redistribution rights to everyone you distribute it to are being explicitly prohibited. (And in fairness I can see why those licenses would cause problems for Microsoft as distributors)&lt;p&gt;On the other hand BSD like licenses that allow you to repackage and distribute without source and without passing rights forward are acceptable.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>cosgroveb</author><text>I&apos;m not going to comment on whether GPL style licenses actually have the effect of promoting freedom like they say, but I don&apos;t see at &lt;i&gt;all&lt;/i&gt; how they take it away. An author is free to write code and distribute it under the GPL. Likewise anyone else is free to fork it, or use it in their own codebase so long as they honor &lt;i&gt;the terms of the license&lt;/i&gt;.&lt;p&gt;How does that take away anyone&apos;s freedom? Don&apos;t like the terms of an author&apos;s library? Go write your own then.</text></comment>
<story><title>Microsoft: No GPLv3 Software for Windows Phone and Xbox Apps.</title><url>http://jan.wildeboer.net/2011/02/microsoft-absolutely-no-free-software-for-windows-phone-and-xbox-apps/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>btipling</author><text>Exactly. Also GPL style licenses are a virus that while they promote freedom, in reality they take it away. It assumes that people are naturally untrustworthy and thus forces them to act in a way the creators of GPL see as the right way. Because of how the GPL licenses are worded, especially insane versions like the AGPL, everything they touch may be affected negatively.  MIT and BSD style licenses on the other hand assume the best in people, and gives them the real freedom to do with code whatever they want.</text></item><item><author>SimonPStevens</author><text>They aren&apos;t prohibiting &quot;Free Software&quot;, they are prohibiting software that is under a license that requires the distributor to pass certain rights along to the recipient.&lt;p&gt;Hence GPL like licenses that require distribution of source code, and that you grant redistribution rights to everyone you distribute it to are being explicitly prohibited. (And in fairness I can see why those licenses would cause problems for Microsoft as distributors)&lt;p&gt;On the other hand BSD like licenses that allow you to repackage and distribute without source and without passing rights forward are acceptable.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>skore</author><text>You&apos;re probably just trolling, but it needs to be said every time: The freedom that the GPL takes away is the freedom to bring down the system. It keeps people in check and prevents corruption. If you enjoy the freedoms of MIT and BSD style licenses - why do you complain about the GPL? It seems that it only takes &quot;freedoms&quot; away that you don&apos;t appear to be interested in anyways?</text></comment>