The point of using BSD license is to get rid of restrictions. Using GPL brings restrictions, same way using closed source components would. It’s as simple as that.

GNU/GPL folks are zealots about user freedoms, not license. Linux leadership (accepting GPL) are less zealotic about user freedoms, but sometimes are zealots about keeping control (rejecting to play nice with the OpenZFS project). BSD people are zealots about getting rid of GPL code so that their product can be used by some stranger in a proprietary way. There is money both in working on GPL software and more liberal licenced software (GPL variants), but it seems everything is set up so that the two camps must not directly cooperate.

https://dev.perl.org/licenses/ is not BSD.

So, your point doesn't hold up even for this case.

You can always combine BSD code with your GPL and release the code as GPL.

You cannot however mix GPL code into your BSD code and the resulting work as BSD.

As the sibling mentions, you cannot re-license code you do not hold copyright to.

That said, you're very close to the mark. GPL applies to distributions of the copyrighted work and executables based on it. So, the concern is around an OpenBSD release - they are shipping a full OS with source code and compiled work product. The GPL is "viral" in that you cannot make this release without licensing your whole distribution as GPL. OpenBSD does not want to be GPL, and so does not include GPL-ed code in base.

The inverse is not true. A Linux distribution can include GPL and BSD-licensed code easily, because the BSD license imposes no constraints on redistribution.

Of course you cannot relicense someone elses git repo.

Copying BSD code and distributing it under another license (even a commercial one) seems to be totally OK though as long as you put in the correct notices.

That is what GPL is meant to protect against.

Right, but the GPL license's protection also means that a BSD cannot be distributed under the BSD license (or similar) if it includes GPL components. This is why OpenBSD excludes GPL components.

GPL enhances user freedom at the expense of restricting what programmers can do.

> Right, but the GPL license's protection also means that a BSD cannot be distributed under the BSD license (or similar) if it includes GPL components.

I fail to see how this is different from what I wrote above (except for the missing word in my post above):

> You cannot however mix GPL code into your BSD code and [distribute] the resulting work as BSD.

I didn't pay enough attention to usernames as I was replying and thought I was talking to multiple people through the chain.

We are in verbose (and unnecessary on my part) agreement.

The “correct notice” being the original BSD license.

>You can always combine BSD code with your GPL and release the code as GPL

That is completely wrong, you cannot change the license at your will ESPECIALLY from BSD to a GPL. The BSD-Code stays BSD-licensed-code, you can include it into a GPL Project, but NOT change the License, doesn't matter if its from BSD to GPL or vice versa.

Since your not the owner of the code, you have absolutely NO right to change the license.