RealNetworks' RTSP Proxy License

David Johnson david at
Tue Sep 11 03:06:23 UTC 2001

On Sunday 09 September 2001 03:01 pm, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:

> I consider licenses
> like the MIT license to be at the bottom of the open source barrel because
> they are ostensibly end-user licenses, at best. They are not as protective
> of freedoms as the GNU GPL (no copyleft), they  say nothing about source
> code (how to you get access?), and they cannot be used for an open source
> project (without significant modification).

Bottom of the barrel! Gee, you make it sound like those who use MIT and 
similar licenses are second class citizens somehow!

Of course they don't protect the wishes of the author like some licenses do. 
But not all authors desire that. Not everyone will have the same goals, 
philosophies or wants as you.

And they certainly CAN be used by an Open Source project with ZERO 
modification. I direct your attention to XFree86 and Apache as two major Open 
Source projects that are not copyleft, and the innumerous lesser projects 
that are released under the MIT, BSD and similar licenses.

If you prefer to use copyleft licenses, then by all means do so. But do not 
look down on those of us who don't as some sort of lower caste. That's 

David Johnson
license-discuss archive is at

More information about the License-discuss mailing list