GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad)

John Cowan jcowan at
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>
    the corridors               ||
during the hours of repose     ||
    in the boots of ascension.  \\ Sign in Austrian ski-resort hotel

license-discuss archive is at

More information about the License-discuss mailing list