Re: BSD Licensed C++ compiler

From: Rich Teer (rich.teer_at_rite-group.com)
Date: 11/09/05 

Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 03:15:44 GMT

On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, John S. Dyson wrote:

> The 'moral' question about the desirability that those who get binaries
> also get the source code doesn't really argue either way about the
> freeness of the GPLed codebase. The fact that the GPL does encumber
> the programs does argue against the freeness of the GPL license terms.

AGreed. That's one reason why I prefer the CDDL. The other main reason
is that the CDDL is a file-based license (rather than project/program based),
so it doesn't enforce its license on other files that make up the same
project/program. 

-- 
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member
President,
Rite Online Inc.
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich

Relevant Pages

  • Re: BSD Licensed C++ compiler
    ... > the programs does argue against the freeness of the GPL license terms. ... is that the CDDL is a file-based license (rather than project/program based), ...
    (comp.unix.programmer)
  • Re: BSD Licensed C++ compiler
    ... > the programs does argue against the freeness of the GPL license terms. ... is that the CDDL is a file-based license (rather than project/program based), ...
    (comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc)
  • Re: GPL V3 and Linux - Dead Copyright Holders
    ... Look at core kernel source code today, and look at it 10 years ago. ... The _only_ license rights anybody ever had to those files come from the COPYING file, ... I argue that for the whole history, Linux has been v2-only unless otherwise explicitly specified. ... Open source is absolutely not about just the source code - it's very much about the process, and about control. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: Compare Linux and Freebsd Redux
    ... > I have discussed all that stuff with several French developers, ... the argument most frequently put forward by GPL ... > author to relicense his code under a commercial license. ... the 'freeness' is meant to be restricted from other people, ...
    (comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc)
  • Re: GPL V3 and Linux - Dead Copyright Holders
    ... I argue that for the whole history, Linux has been v2-only unless otherwise explicitly specified. ... The license as distributed with the kernel itself states that unless the program specifies the version of the GPL that it's under, ... As additional "proof" of the fact that the license can not be considered part of "the program" he pointed out that the GPL document in itself is not GPL compatible, meaning that under this strict interpretation it could even be argued that there would be a legal problem in combining this document with the rest of the program. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)