GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad)

[John Cowan]

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