Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes: > > Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> But despite the above I do want to point out that the argument > >> about "the only thing stopping the possessor" can easily (and, > >> IMHO, more justifiably) be used against the GPL and in favor of > >> BSD-style licensing. Simply s/possessor/possessor of source/ to > >> see what I mean. > > > > No, and this is an important point. > > > > The BSD-license does not restrict modification to the possessor of > > source. If you have a binary, you can still change it. There is no > > restriction, and if you are clever enough, you can do it. > > > > So the situations are not parallel, and crucially so. > > How so? If anything, what you're saying here is a further argument > against the need for a requirement to pass source along with binaries, > since, according to you, we don't really need the source to make > changes.
Binary only distribution *inhibits* changes, and makes them *harder*, without making them strictly impossible. The GPL says that the costs of including source are trivial--an extra CD, and therefore requires you to share them. The BSD license does not require such sharing, but that does not imply that it views sharing as *wrong*.