On Wed, 2015-04-01 at 08:32 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: > > On Apr 1, 2015 4:04 AM, "Tim Makarios" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 6:24 PM, Tim Makarios <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Really? Then do the BSD and ISC licences also violate the OSD and > FSD, > > because they don't require the source code of derivative works to be > > made available? > > > But they do make the source code of the original work available, which > makes them open source but not copyleft.
No, the licences don't make the source code available, the programmers (generally) do. There's nothing to stop someone from applying the ISC licence to a binary blob. > > > So is CC-BY-SA also non-copyleft? > > > No, the ShareAlike aspect of CC-BY-SA makes it copyleft. Right, but CC-BY-SA doesn't require the publication of source code, does it? Someone, for peculiar reasons of their own, could choose to apply CC-BY-SA to a binary blob. Of course, this wouldn't make the binary blob into open source software, since the source wouldn't be available. But nor would it make CC-BY-SA into a non-copyleft licence. I contend that it's possible to write a simple copyleft licence that doesn't require the publication of source code. When such a licence is applied to human-preferred source code, it would make that source code into open source software; when it's applied to binary blobs (which might be derivative works of open source software covered by the licence), it wouldn't make those binary blobs into open source software, but it would still be a copyleft licence. Tim <>< _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
