GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad)
John Cowan
jcowan at reutershealth.com
Tue Sep 25 17:26:06 UTC 2001
Greg London wrote:
>>In the case of the MIT license, Bob certainly
>>*can* charge Alice a million
>>bucks for the source, but the license would
>>still be an Open Source license.
>
> It seems to me that the MIT does not meet
> item #2 of the OSD, then. The APSL goes
> above and beyond #2 requirements. But the
> MIT license seems to fall short.
Let's not lose track of what we are talking about. The OSD requires (by
#2) that the publisher of an Open Source work provide access to the
source code, and that (by #3) it be possible for anyone to freely make
derivative works.
There is *no* requirement that derivative works are themselves
necessarily Open Source. Under the GPL, they are; under MIT/BSD, they
are not; under LGPL, it depends on the character of the derivative
work; under MPL, it depends on how the changes were made.
--
Not to perambulate || John Cowan <jcowan at reutershealth.com>
the corridors || http://www.reutershealth.com
during the hours of repose || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
in the boots of ascension. \\ Sign in Austrian ski-resort hotel
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
More information about the License-discuss
mailing list