This may come as a surprise to many, but GPL is against my religion. As a Buddhist I cannot, in good conscience, release any of my code under GPL, or, for that matter, submit any improvements to someone else's GPL'd code.

While most of my software is free of charge and includes source code, none of it has ever been released under GPL. None of it ever will.

It has nothing to do with the most common argument about GPL being anti-business. I am not concerned about that.

The reason why I, as a Buddhist, cannot release any of my work under GPL is the stipulation that binds any future contributor to the code to make the source code to his/her modifications available to anyone who wants it.

As a Buddhist, I am free to tell anyone how to use my own work, but I can never impose on others what they should do with theirs.

To be faithful to my religious beliefs, I can do any of the following:

• Release my code in binary form only. I may ask to be paid for my work, or I may just give it away free of charge.
• Release my code in source code (again, free of charge or for a payment) and ask that no modifications be made.
• Release my code in source code and allow others to modify it for their own use only.
• Release my code in source code and allow others to modify it, and release their modifications without imposing the terms under which they release their modifications.

What I cannot do is allow others to modify my code and force them to release their own modifications in source code. Hence, I can neither release my software under GPL, nor can I add any improvements of my own to any code released under GPL by someone else.

Having said that, I am not telling anyone else not to release their own code under the terms of the GPL. I am just saying that I cannot do so because that would be against my religion.

I release most of my code under BSD license which allows others to distribute it with or without modifications, in source code or in binary.

Not meaning to offend, but whizkid is offering proof that Eastern religion affords hypocrisy too. (Of course you don't have to live in Taiwan long to figure that out.) Without hostility to whizkid, I must express my complete disagreement with whizkid both in principle and in grounds. (I personally am a Christian;² many Christians hold that belief in evolutionary science is a grievous heresy. I think they are grievously in error, though I still may respect them.) Allow me to explain before you judge...

The reason why I, as a Buddhist, cannot release any of my work under GPL is the stipulation that binds any future contributor to the code to make the source code to his/her modifications available to anyone who wants it. ...

To be faithful to my religious beliefs, I can do any of the following:

• Release my code in binary form only. I may ask to be paid for my work, or I may just give it away free of charge.
• Release my code in source code (again, free of charge or for a payment) and ask that no modifications be made.

The GPL doesn't forbid you to do anything with your own work. It only forbids you from imposing restrictions on derivatory works. And if you don't make a derivatory work, you can impose whatever restrictions you like.

Yet you say that you can in good faith forbid others to redistribute or modify your work, to make original works based on yours. How can that possibly be morally superior to the GPL, which provides all that freedom and so much more? The only restriction the GPL places on code is forbidding the very restrictions you oppose! And only then on derivatory works, which you claim that you may forbid!

Of course many rabid anti-GPL pro-BSD people support the same irrational argument. I don't understand it. Why must we give away the freedom to take away freedom? If you may use the force of law and copyright to restrict, why may I not use the force of law and copyright to restrict you from restricting? My own conclusion, at least the only one that I find makes any sense, is that people who believe that the GPL is immoral and the BSD license is good don't believe in free software and are only interested in what they can get out of it. Beyond that, I am stumped. Why else would it be morally acceptable to take a completely free BSD package and sell it under a proprietary, binary-only license, yet be immoral to grant the freedoms to use, redistribute, and modify without relicensing? Only if you were interested in doing the former but not the latter.

Realise that I believe, and I know Stallman believes, that if copyright held no legal force, then the GPL would be irrelevent and unnecessary.¹ The GPL is an abuse-preventer. In my mind it fits in very well with the Taoist principles of pacifism, very Aikido-like in its use of the enemy's own chi to deflect harm without initiating force or aggression.

---

¹ It has been rightly and obviously pointed out that if there were no copyright someone could then redistribute binary-only forks of software. But such proprietary software unprotected from "piracy" (smear word) could hardly compete with openly developed software. In the ideal world, copyrights and licenses would be irrelevent and good faith would flourish in the absence of government force.

² Not anymore. Times have changed.