Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is really bad abuse of terminology. Non-copyleft and copyleft licenses are all both open source and free software licenses. They're all free and open, which are synonyms in the context of software licensing. I think you'll confuse people if you use the terminology as you are using it (plus it's just plain wrong). Personally, if I'm writing a hobby project then I want it to be copyleft. Of course I want it to be…
I should have written libre not free. That has a clear meaning (and it's what I use in the followup comment). Do you have a better suggestion than "open" for "no restrictions on use"? > Personally, if I'm writing a hobby project then I want it to be copyleft. Totally up to you! In the context of Haskell projects though, I really, really want to see Haskell businesses succeed as well as the open Haskell ecosystem.
BSD and GPL are both free, libre and open.
>Totally up to you! In the context of Haskell projects though, I really, really want to see Haskell businesses succeed as well as the open Haskell ecosystem.
There's nothing about the GPL (or other copyleft licenses) that makes them incompatible with business.