BSD / GPL compatibility - Infection by "Libraries"
jcowan at reutershealth.com
Wed Feb 16 22:20:26 UTC 2000
"Dennis E. Hamilton" wrote:
> Based on my readings of discussions on the question of infection by
> binding, no one knows for sure. It is all speculation about libraries,
> linking, binding, run-time coordinated use, etc., etc. There has been no
> test in court.
> I have come to favor the MIT-style licenses that go no farther
> about derivative works than the OSD requires. I want people to know they
> can safely use the software/code and I want them to feel welcome and valued
> in contributing back, but not compelled to do so.
I think this view is perfectly defensible.
IMHO the case for the GPL is this, stripped to essentials:
When you lose interest in your project and stop maintaining it,
are your users prepared to (perhaps) have to purchase closed-source
upgrades from Borg, Inc., rather than being sure that such upgrades
(if they exist at all) will be freely available?
> When I did that little analysis about the Angels, Borg, Inc., and Cavaliers
> last night, I did make myself a little queasy over the appearance of
> infringement when extending/maintaining my work makes changes that someone
> else has also arrived at in a GPL's derivative. (I am safer with regard to
> the closed-source Borg case so long as I had no way to see their source.)
Don't read the Cavaliers' code, then.
> [...] whether commercially or otherwise [...]
Just as a matter of terminology, implicitly identifying "commercial"
with "closed-source" is fast becoming a bad assumption. Commercial
vs. non-commercial is now orthogonal to open-source vs. closed-source.
Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis vom dies! || John Cowan <jcowan at reutershealth.com>
Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau, || http://www.reutershealth.com
Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau, || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Und trank die Milch vom Paradies. -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)
More information about the License-discuss