matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu
Tue Jan 20 18:49:53 UTC 2009
Steve Thomas wrote:
> Moreover, I note the following comment  by OpenBSD founder, Theo de Raadt:
I'm not going to address this, as it's deliberately inflammatory, and
not really relevant to the "technical" issue of how to craft a license
that does what you want (if it's possible to do so).
> Consider the following scenario:
> (1) I make my code available under some open source license.
> (2) After a chain of 1+ verbatim copies and/or derivations, the code
> (or derivative work thereof) ends up in the possession of a certain Mr
> (3) Mr Takesallsorts creates a derivative work from the code he obtained.
> (4) Mr Takesallsorts licenses copies of his derivative work
> exclusively under GPL.
> After (4), companies can :
> (5) Create a derivative work of Mr Takesallsorts's code
> but cannot then :
> (6) Sell binaries of this derivative work without making the source available.
> Does a license already exist that, for any such chain as in (2), would
> preclude step (4) whilst allowing (5) and (6) in the event that Mr
> Takesallsorts chooses to distribute his derivative work ?
If I understand correctly (please, tell me if not), you /don't/ want
Takesallsorts to be able to license the "work as a whole" (in GPL
jargon) under GPL, unless he /also/ dual-licenses his changes under your
You /do/ want derivative works of Takesallsorts' work a whole to be
allowed. And you don't want recipients of those derivative works to be
guaranteed the ability to request source.
I don't know any such license, nor am I confident one is possible. The
tricky parts are:
a. You want to allow GPL derivative works, but only if the changes are
b. You don't want recipients of GPL derivative works to be able to
> Is it possible for any such license to be GPL-compatible ?
I doubt that.
More information about the License-discuss