MIT vs. Ruby/GPL License

[Chad Perrin]

The major difference from the "forever opensource" point of view is
that BSD license does not require you to distribute the code in source
form.
This allows you to only distribute the binaries of a modified version
of the software and keep the source, making the software as
proprietary as it ever gets. People can disassemble it, but they can
do the same with proprietary software (the license may forbid it but
it is unenforcible technically and often even legally). To disallow
copying the binaries just link with a proprietary module.

Software gets a *lot* more proprietary than "only available as a binary".
It's also rather difficult to get existing copies of source out of
circulation, so taking a copy of the publicly available source and
compiling it, then distributing only the binary, doesn't really
accomplish much in terms of making it more "closed", in practice.

Your comment about what is and is not enforceable strikes me as premature
and lacking strong supporting evidence.

 

[Chad Perrin]

Well, we are all entitled (even to argue if we want But classically
I think the "war" of license is between GPL and BSD isn't it? That's
probably a huge over simplification, but that tends to be my shallow
assessment of the field. And that was really the crux of my dividing
line for point 2.1.

Actually, from the FSF point of view (what one might call "copyleft"),
it's basically "GPL vs. everyone else". From the proprietary point of
view (what one might call "copyright"), it's basically "proprietary vs.
everyone else, especially the GPL". From the permissive licensing point
of view (what one might call "copyfree"[1]) -- including the BSD license,
among others -- it's basically "leave me the hell alone".

Again, it's a bit of a gross simplification, but I think it covers the
major views in those three "camps" (where "proprietary" is only a "camp"
in the same way Iraq, Iran, and Korea might be called an "axis of evil",
which is to say "it's not really a camp", and where "permissive" is only
a "camp" in that it's not part of either of the other two, and not only
isn't really a camp but is just a bunch of individuals and small groups
who have something in common).

 

[Michal Suchanek]

Software gets a *lot* more proprietary than "only available as a binary".
It's also rather difficult to get existing copies of source out of
circulation, so taking a copy of the publicly available source and
compiling it, then distributing only the binary, doesn't really
accomplish much in terms of making it more "closed", in practice.

Please, read what you are responding to. The critical part is you
*modify* it. Then the modification is only available as part of you
proprietary product which you make as proprietary as you like.

Your comment about what is and is not enforceable strikes me as premature
and lacking strong supporting evidence.

Whatever. But unless you also require a separate hardware, physical
security, and whatnot, it is possible to disassemble the software, and
in practice this option is used.

Thanks

Michal

 

[Chad Perrin]

Please, read what you are responding to. The critical part is you
*modify* it. Then the modification is only available as part of you
proprietary product which you make as proprietary as you like.

I'm always confused by what that's supposed to hurt, all things
considered -- so it tends to slip past my notice. Consider the two
options:

1. Someone modifies something, and doesn't release the source. In the
process of this, that person cuts himself off from any benefits of open
source development.
2. Someone doesn't modify it, and uses something else instead -- and
still doesn't release the source. In the process of this, that person
cuts himself off from any benefits of open source development.

Whatever. But unless you also require a separate hardware, physical
security, and whatnot, it is possible to disassemble the software, and
in practice this option is used.

I see. You meant enforceable in practice, in terms of trying to make
sure nobody does it -- not in court, in terms of sticking it to someone
you caught doing it. I guess that distinction wasn't clear to me in your
earlier comments.

 

[Chad Perrin]

Sadly, we now have 54 OSI licenses and no sign of that.

OSI gets funding by certifying licenses. I'm not surprised.

 

[Trans]

Years ago, I proposed a sort of "license markup language" to the OSI, on
the theory that all OSI licenses are different combinations of the same
basic features, and people could pick and choose licenses based on what
they wanted to accomplish. At the time, I remember they said they were
working on just such a thing.

Sadly, we now have 54 OSI licenses and no sign of that.

Hmm.... well, do you want to do that? I was thinking the same thing
earlier today, a sort of step-by-step questionnaire that produces a
custom license.

(Reminds me of those three piece picture books where you give it a
clown's head, a plumbers belly and cowboy boots

T.

 

[M. Edward (Ed) Borasky]

Hmm.... well, do you want to do that? I was thinking the same thing
earlier today, a sort of step-by-step questionnaire that produces a
custom license.

(Reminds me of those three piece picture books where you give it a
clown's head, a plumbers belly and cowboy boots

T.

Let me see ... the clown is Richard Stallman, the cowboy is Eric
Raymond, and the plumber is Bill Gates, right?

<ducking>

 

[Michal Suchanek]

I'm always confused by what that's supposed to hurt, all things
considered -- so it tends to slip past my notice. Consider the two
options:

1. Someone modifies something, and doesn't release the source. In the
process of this, that person cuts himself off from any benefits of open
source development.

Not necessarily. He can still benefit from the improvements and fixes
that go into the original project if the modification was relatively
clean. I do not want to judge if this is evil or not. It is possible
and it is one of the things GPL tries to prevent.

There were a few cases when GPL really won this. For one, there are
wireless routers on th market that have firmware based on Linux and
other GPL components. When people found out the manufacturer was
forced to release the source so that people could make customizations.
However, in some cases GPL has lost. Modified firmware for TiVO can be
built but won't work because it won't be signed by the manufacturer.

Also GPL makes this possible at some cost. GPL software is less
reusable than BSD licensed one, and because of some less careful
wording in GPL and/or other opensource licenses GPL modules cannot be
used in software covered by those licenses.

2. Someone doesn't modify it, and uses something else instead -- and
still doesn't release the source. In the process of this, that person
cuts himself off from any benefits of open source development.



I see. You meant enforceable in practice, in terms of trying to make
sure nobody does it -- not in court, in terms of sticking it to someone
you caught doing it. I guess that distinction wasn't clear to me in your
earlier comments.

There are some provisions in the law that allow reverse engineering.
At least in some places and to some extent. However, I do not follow
the development closely and I am not aware of any case when such
provision was actually used and defended in the court. And there are,
of course, many more provisions against anything ;-)

Still in real life the practical (technical) enforceability is more important.

Thanks

Michal