maybe-ITP: bsdiff

Tacvek unknown_kev_cat@hotmail.com
Tue May 17 19:48:00 GMT 2005


>It's hard to see the BSDPL as an open-source license, since only one
>level of branching from the "one true authorized source" is allowed:

This only applies to commercial distribution. AFAICT this is some sort of 
weird ANTI-GPL license, which works is much the same way as the GPL, except 
also allows commercial distribution.

Basically this license is designed to ensure that any derivative works 
distributed in an open source manner, can always be commercially 
distributed.
The main (ideological) difference between this and the LGPL, is that the 
LGPL allows somebody to 'take away' the rights of commercial distribution, 
by using the conversion to GPL clause, but this licence does not.

The author intended this to be an anti-copyleft open source licence, and 
that could meet the criteria for the open source definition. This lience is 
ambigious.

If the licence was better written and clearly met the open source 
definition, there is still annother problem. Based on the fsf's definitions 
of derivitive works, both workes to be linked together need permision to 
link to the other. Most licences do not restrict linking, but both the GPL 
and the licence the BSDPL was meant to be do. The GPL exception on would 
allow linking, but the other licence would not thus preventing the 
distribution.

The above concept is often called the 'viral' nature of the GPL, but i think 
that is a poor way to describe it. 



More information about the Cygwin-apps mailing list