Claire Xen  🏳️‍⚧️ 🏳️‍🌈 🧙🏻‍♀️ BLM  🏴 🚩

@oe1cxw Please just note that if you use copyleft license, so any modification of standard license, project is not recognized as opensource. Problem comes when you need to re-license in future and have to find all contributors and get them to agree to new one.

In what way a copyleft license is not "opensource"? Yes, it is a pain to change the license later, but being able to change a license is not in the definition of "opensource" nor it should be (IMO).

Well copyleft license is not OSI approved license, and then you have other issues, like: not able to use some libraries since their license is not compatible due to your restrictions, can not apply to free licenses for paid software, other projects hesitate to use yours ...

GPL is a OSI approced license. And you can not get more copyleft than that. Other reasons you mentioned are valid (except that you *can* use ↄ⃝ licenses for paid software, you just need to provide the sources) and have nothing to do with "open source" definition.

The GPL vs BSD-style licenses is a topic as old as these licenses. In a nuthsell: - BSD-style gives the user total freedom - ↄ⃝ licenses give the freedom to the software itself - with this in mind, your 'limitations' become strengths - free code can not be closed