On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 8:24 PM, Aidan Gauland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Would releasing a program that was written in an intrepred language under a > BSD-style license allow the user to do much more with the source code, than > if it was released under the GPL?
The "interpreted-code" example may be confusing things. Rephrase it ... > Would releasing a program under a BSD-license allow the user to do much more > with it than if it were released under the GPL? Yes. They would be able to redistribute modified versions of the program to the general public, without releasing the source/details of those modifications. Under the GPL terms, they would only be able to distribute modified versions (without releasing the source/details of those modifications) within their own organisation -- if they wanted to redistribute modified versions to the general public, they would have to publicaly release their modifications under the GPL. (For this reason, the BSD licenses are seen as "more friendly" towards commercial businesses who want to make money from your code, and don't want anyone to know what changes they have made) Now the "interpreted-code" example comes back ... surely you can't distribute an interpreted-code program without the code itself being visible? Well, you can, because nobody defined what the modifications could be. All you would have to do is to obscure or compile the code (yes, there are Ruby compilers, see http://exerb.sf.net/ for example). The GPL deliberately restricts your freedom to "profit" from modified code by forcing you to release your modifications back into the community. The BSD doesn't care if someone else "profits". -jim
