|
Re: Maybe OT but of interest to some
de arachnid 06/04/2006 09:59
On Mon, 29 May 2006 10:14:37 -0400, Chris Lee wrote:
> In article <ionk7292511n7mgnccsm0mkc9ipj246rfg@4ax.com>,
> rukbat@pern.invalid says...
>>
>>
>>On Sun, 28 May 2006 07:44:43 -0400, Chris Lee <clee2@envirolink.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Wrong. The GPL license has *NOTHING TO DO WITH OPEN SOURCE*
>>>licenses.
>>
>>Doesn't the GPL require that the source be made available?
>
> Yes,but it's not really an Open Source License.
That depends on how you define "Open Source".
The GPL imposes a requirement that you have to redistribute source code if
you distribute the binaries. This ensures that source code remains available
to end-users. However, some would say that this one requirement means that
users are no longer totally free to do what they want, thus the source isn't
truly "open".
The BSD license imposes no such restriction so at first sight it allows
more freedom than the GPL. However, since someone can take the whole OS if
they want, make a few changes, and then refuse to redistribute the complete
source to their changes (this is what Apple did when they based OS-X on
FreeBSD), BSD-licensed software is at high risk of becoming closed-source
for the end-user.
Which license is "most" free is just a matter of whose perspective you wish
to take - that of a source-code recipient, or that of their downstream
users.
> The GPL has more to do with Federal and International Copyright Law.
The GPL cleverly uses the copyright law to grant permission to use the code
only if source is distributed with any binaries built from it. There's no
point of attack here; if a company gets the GPL "contract" or the law
that enforces it ruled invalid, then that only means that they're no longer
granted permission to use the source code.
> Which is why so many people (Like Bill Gates) are so scared to death
> of it.
Yep. If one single line of GPL'd code is ever found anywhere in Windows,
Microsoft will have to open-source the whole shebang.
Wouldn't that be fun? :o)