Quoting Ben Tilly (bti...@gmail.com): [...] > However if someone downstream re-releases under a copyleft license, > there is essentially no chance of changes downstream of that ever > being re-released under a permissive license that can be reintegrated > back into the original project.
To be deliberately flip, the big difference is: A derivative instance released under a copyleft licence cannot be reintegrated into the original permissive-licensed product. versus: A derivative instance released under a proprietary licence cannot be reintegrated into the original permissive-licensed product. (Because it's -- hey! -- proprietary. But wait, you say, you're missing the point! There's a non-zero positive chance the derivative under a proprietary licence will eventually be contributed back under the permissive one. Could happen. Whereas, derivatives initially released under a copyleft licence are basically never made available under a permissive one. (Except, oh, many driver codebases of which that's the case, including aic7xxx SCSI if memory serves.) Anyway, in dealing with copyright law and software, it's well to reconcile one's self early on to a pair of background facts: (1) People can and do perform pretty much whatever screwball actions they wish to perform with their own property. (2) You should take care to understand all of the implications of any licence you use, because somebody else definitely may, and you'll look really silly acting surprised. Permissive licensing implies right to create derivatives under licences you don't like and reuse in ways you don't approve of, because that's somebody else's property (derivative of yours, but needing to satisfy only your minimal conditions), and some guy actually read your licence, correctly understood its permissive nature, and acted accordingly. _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
