Re: ksh/AT&T license (was: Re: bash: coprocesses?)
From: Barry Margolin (barry.margolin_at_level3.com)
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 17:01:42 GMT
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org_.nospam>,
Joe Halpin <email@example.com_.nospam> wrote:
>Barry Margolin <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> It seems like you're picking a particular requirement (distributing
>> the source code of modifications) as the distinction between "really
>> open" and "mostly open". Maybe you should use more a specific
>> phrase, like "open for use in proprietary software", to avoid
>Well, what would you say is the difference? For example, I think
>there's a fundamental difference between the BSD license and the
>GPL. I think that software under the BSD license is more open than
>other software licensed under the GPL, because there are fewer
>restrictions under the BSD license.
On the other hand, the BSD license is more likely to result in end users
not being able to tailor the code they get, because a vendor can distribute
a modified version without source. So as far as the end users are
concerned, it's less open.
The GPL and the OSD were written from the perspective of providing the most
benefits to the end users. As there's often a conflict between the wishes
of users and vendors, it's difficult for a licensing scheme to be "more
open" from both points of view.
-- Barry Margolin, email@example.com Level(3), Woburn, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.