The two recent posts about some individuals' choice of GPL versus others' preference for BSD and MIT style licensing has caused a lot of debate and response . I've seen everything as an interesting combination of very important topics being taken far too seriously and far too personally. All involved need to take a few steps back. For the uninitiated and as a clarifier for the initiated, we're dealing with (basically) three categories of licensing when someone releases software (and/or its code): Closed Source. Easiest to explain, because you just get nothing. GPL. If you get the software, you get the source code, you get to change it, and anything you combine it with must be under the same terms. MIT and BSD. If you get the software, you might get the source code, you get to change it, and you have no obligations about anything else you combine it with. The situation gets stickier when we look at those combinations and the transitions between them. Use GPL code with ...