New Open Source License: Single Supplier Open Source License
rsidd at online.fr
Sun Jan 25 09:04:37 PST 2004
[probably OT even for -chat, but...]
Richard Schilling wrote:
> The [L]GPL license makes this the submission of changes mandatory,
No, it does not. Please do your homework before posting such rubbish
in public. What is mandatory is distributing source code if you
redistribute your binary. Since you are not planning to allow
redistribution, this is a non-issue. The GPL and LGPL emphatically do
not require submission of changes, private or public, back to the
original author. Private changes can remain in your hands, and you're
required to give source code only to parties to whom you distribute a
> The problem with [L]GPL and BSD is that if someone does not turn in
> their changes then the developer has no recourse to enforce the
That is because there is no such requirement. When there is a genuine
GPL violation, there are legal recourses. Sending the original
author your private modification is not a requirement of any licence I
know of (and is probably not enforceable even if you required it).
And your licence violates practically every other requirement of open
source as commonly understood and as defined on www.opensource.org,
starting with the very first (free redistribution). So please don't
call it open source.
[from another mail]
> > See http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php.
> I read that very carefully.
Please read it again, starting from the top.
> I am trying to make it possible for people to earn a living as Open
> Source developers.
No, you're not. You're trying to hitch a free ride on the "open
source" buzzword, without meeting its requirements. The world does
not owe you a living.
More information about the freebsd-chat