I’m active in circles associated with FSF and I often hear them saying research or academic software or programs must be licensed under GPL to prevent the work from being used in proprietary software.

But as a researcher I think that’s just involving politics in scientific work. I like BSD or MIT for research because it gives more flexibility for the users to use my work in anyway they see fit.

I think restricting my research work removes the point of it if it can’t be used freely by any person for any kind of work.

What do you people think?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] beyond@linkage.ds8.zone 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Ultimately it's your work so it's up to you how you want to release it. BSD/MIT aren't really any more or less free than the GPL because they still guarantee the four freedoms. The GPL just prevents downstream projects from denying those four freedoms further down stream, which is seen as important in the free software movement, but it doesn't have to be to you.

One thing to keep in mind with these permissive or "pushover" type licenses although they are free software licenses, normalizing them means that the proprietary software industry ultimately gets to choose what is allowed to be released as free software. There is a warning that "business friendly" free software licensing does not ultimately mean business will be friendly back, especially in an age where there is increasing concern over proprietary software companies taking advantage without either giving back nor funding upstream projects.