BSD+1 License

[Stefano Vincenzi]

> 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.

hmm, that's right... the main distinction should be made for  
distribution of binaries; commercial or non-commercial is not  
relevant. So, if I understand it correctly the GPL doesn't allow for  
binary-only distribution?

>
>> 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

By publishing I mean in general, the clause doesn't state "publish to  
the original author". It is implied (I know, bad idea for a license to  
use assumptions) that publishing means making the source code available.

N/ please reply to the list also so that we don't get 2 identical  
posts on our inbox.