On Thursday 06 January 2011 12:49 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
Now this was short and to the point. Thanks. > there are 35-40 recognised open source licenses. The simplest is the BSD > license. It is only 3 clauses. Basically it says: > > you can use modify and redistribute the software in any way you like. > The only condition is that if you make it proprietary then you cannot > use the original name or attribute to the original. Can a software under BSD be simply copied and renamed under a proprietary name and locked out to the developers? How does it benefit the developer community, except the chance to get paid for developing on a contract like basis till the project is running? On reading your mails after this one, it appears that the BSD form of license is good for companies who want people to contribute to their code but after the job is done they will close the code and use it commercially. If the developers are aware of what they are getting into and are willing to help then its fine. Opening the code helps the company in improving its software's quality so end users will get a better product. However if the proprietary product is now commercially available for a price that is out of reach of the common man then it beats one of the unwritten purposes of FOSS ideology ie. to make the software more accessible to the masses. What about vendor lock-ins due to proprietary data formats used for software that has turned proprietary after its conversion from BSD? In short a BSD license would be used by commercial organisations to develop and improvise their software through the public without being compelled to share the code for their finished product. > the GPL says: you can use modify redistribute, but you cannot make it > proprietary and if you distribute your modifications you *must* > contribute it back Does it not make sense that if a software is created openly by the public, for the public, then those members of the public who use the code for distribution and or make changes to it for re-distribution should pass on the same rights that they have _inherited_ from the developing public? GPL simply wants to ensure that what is open remains open when it is passed on to others. You even have the freedom to make commercial gains from the GPLed software without any financial obligitation towards the GPLed software developers. Fair enough. I would not call it restrictive as it is only protecting the freedom of the community to have _access_ to the code that was created from a public resource and is distributed back to the public. You still have the freedom to use the GPLed code and modify it for your private usage without revealing your modifications. This license would be ideal for community projects that are meant to make software easily accessible to everyone at lowest cost. Commercial organisations with a conscience towards the community will take advantage of this license and help the community grow and in the process make the company grow too. Commercial organisations that are only profit and monopoly oriented may dislike the full freedom that the GPL license obligates its _inheritors_ to pass on ( which they find restrictive to themselves as developers, who do not want to share code for the finished product ). They would be more comfortable with a BSD license. Ultimately both are going to make money. It all depends on one's beliefs, ethics and conscience and how one wants to make money. -- As a proper list etiquette... Please trim your replies. Post your replies below the relevant original text, leaving a line space. Do not re-use old messages to write new ones. Regards, Rony. -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
