David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: > Paul de Weerd wrote: >> >> Scenario A, this code is released under the BSD license. You can take >> it, improve it and never share your changes with anyone. >> >> Scenario B, this code is released under the GPL license. You can take >> it, improve it and never share your changes with anyone. >> >> Where is the difference ? How did you avoid the social failure you >> spoke of ? >> >> I'll tell you where the difference is (with an example). You can sell >> your changed version in scenario A but you can not sell it in scenario >> B (given the 'never share your changes with anyone'-part). But you can >> use it all you like. >> > You can sell it in both scenarios. > What you can not do in Scenario B is sell modified versions of someone > else's code without providing source.
When code is GPL licensed and you sell it (and thus re-distribute it), you will have to provide the source code, including modifications if any, by at least providing a way for people to request it and then of course actually get it. This is what has caught Linksys and a number of other GPL-code users as they are violating the license. The only way you are not obliged to provide the source in the case of GPL is when you are not re-distributing it. Eg when you have a company of 300k people and you only use the code+patches internally, all is fine and you can have your souped up gcc compiler or whatever. If another party (eg a customer) buys the thing though, you have to provide the option to let them get the source of you. > Neither the BSD not GPL licenses do much to limit what you do for your > own use. Correct. Though the moment you sell, you are re-distributing and then you will have to ;) [..] > Though for the life of me I can not understand why allowing a third > party to modify your work, refuse to share their modifications with > anyone and then > resell something that is primarily your work for their profit, is > somehow more free. Because it allows those people to actually USE your code in their products. With GPL it is not an option as they will have to disclose their work. > But the whole argument is just stupid. If you create something that is > copyrighted, as the author you are completely free to decide exactly what > rights beyond those of copyright you wish to extend. > > One license is better than the other only to the extent that it better > reflects the wishes of the author. I can fully agree with that ;) Stripping off the license from another authors work though.... that still is illegal. > As the author you can omit the license entirely - and just include > Copyright 2007 by Me. That preserves all available freedoms to the > author and entirely prohibits redistribution without permission. > Actually you can even omit the copyright notice too. Don't you just love the Bern convention :) Though any courtcase where it is not specified might easily be stapled as 'the copyright was not there so we can't know who owns it'. Thus wherever possible always tag ones files with a (c) <year> <author> this is also handy for determining prior art etc. Greets, Jeroen [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]
