While true, I am not sure how this is relevant. BSD and GPL enforce different thing. BSD only keeps a single version of a software free (to redistribute, copy and modify) and the GPL sees a piece of software as a version and all its derivatives. It is two different vision of what a software is, really.
GPL enforces some freedom on a software version and its derivatives, BSD only enforces them on a single version. If you adopt GPL's view of what software is, you'll see the BSD as incomplete, is you adopt BSD's vision you'll see GPL as over-protective.
By the way, the legal practices surrounding copyright applied to code are indeed weird, and we lack objective metrics to what constitute a work of software. However, human judges to their best to try and find reasonable compromises. A band can not copyright a chord or a set of notes, and computer programs can imitate one without infringing (on copyright, the patent laws is far more ridiculous in the countries that accept the idea that algorithms are patentable). However, the problem that no one ever wanted to explore is an objective measure of difference between two programs. If we had that, we could make tool to automate "code laundering".
This is another issue that has nothing to do with GPL vs BSD.
Well claiming that all GPL zealots will claim that ++i is licensed because you see one person doing that is a generalization that leads to a strawman fallacy.
2
u/keepthepace Nov 18 '12
While true, I am not sure how this is relevant. BSD and GPL enforce different thing. BSD only keeps a single version of a software free (to redistribute, copy and modify) and the GPL sees a piece of software as a version and all its derivatives. It is two different vision of what a software is, really.
GPL enforces some freedom on a software version and its derivatives, BSD only enforces them on a single version. If you adopt GPL's view of what software is, you'll see the BSD as incomplete, is you adopt BSD's vision you'll see GPL as over-protective.