Best base license to pick?
jasonjgw at pacific.net.au
Sat Feb 12 08:58:38 UTC 2005
Matthew Seth Flaschen writes:
> I'm curious. What part of it do you object to, exactly, and why?
I object to the licensor's being able to require that all modified
versions be distributed in the form of original work + patches. There
are several grounds of objection:
1. Attribution and other provisions discussed on this list can
achieve all of the reasonable purposes which the pristine+patches
2. This is an unreasonable burden on software maintainers. Suppose the
original developer decides to discontinue the package, or (in the
case of an organization) ceases to exist, without changing the
license. However much the project evolves and however far it grows,
a simple, clean collection of source files can never again be
distributed; successive versions will always have to be released as
a collection of original files plus all the necessary patches
encapsulating the differences between these and the latest version.
3. There is also the problem of whether this extends to all derived
works. If someone includes a portion of the code in another
project, they may then be burdened with having to distribute the
whole of the original code along with their software; or else the
license would have to restrict the inclusion of portions of the
code in other works, limiting its utility.
Those are the main arguments that come immediately to mind. There may
well be others.
More information about the License-discuss