BSD+1 License

[John Cowan]

Stefano Vincenzi scripsit:

> What I don't understand is how then the GPL is considered open source,  
> if it has limitations for commercial uses.

The GNU GPL does not make distinctions between commercial and
non-commercial users or uses.  The only distinctions made are between
people who distribute source (who can do what they like) and people who
distribute binaries -- they must also distribute source to the same
people without extra cost, except reproduction cost.

> At least in intent, it is not about preventing commercial  
> binarydistribution but ensuring that those forks give back the changes  
> (made only to the modules or classes that were part of the original  
> project, other modules developed outside the project but that uses/ 
> calls to functions in the open modules can remain closed).

First of all, if people don't distribute their forks, you can't get
the changes back, at least not under an Open Source license.  I can
always fork Open Source programs for my own use.  What's more, you
can't demand that people send even their published changes to you --
that makes the license break down if you go out of business, die, or
otherwise become unavailable.  The GPL only demands that distributors
send source changes *to people who got binaries*.  It's customary to
distribute source changes to all (using a web site), but not required.

-- 
John Cowan        http://ccil.org/~cowan   cowan at ccil.org
Lope de Vega: "It wonders me I can speak at all.  Some caitiff rogue did
rudely yerk me on the knob, wherefrom my wits still wander."
An Englishman: "Ay, a filchman to the nab betimes 'll leave a man
crank for a spell." --Harry Turtledove, Ruled Britannia