[Simh] Pontus asks Is [the] BSD [license] liberal enough?

[Pontus Pihlgren]

To clarify, this applies to GPLv2. I don't know a lot about GPLv3

/P

On Sun, Jun 07, 2015 at 10:00:47AM +0200, Pontus Pihlgren wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 06, 2015 at 08:08:29PM -0400, Clem Cole wrote:
> 
> > ​Without getting into the good/bad politics of the different 
> > license its pretty simple.
> 
> I'd also like to avoid a good/bad discussion. I too use both.
> 
> > The GPL is a "virus" which says that if you use the 
> > technology, a ny "derivitive work" ​ is not yours exclusively, ​ 
> > you must be willing to give the sources to not only the 
> > original but your work anyone that asks for it.  This means 
> > that if you use the technology you have to provide a way for 
> > people to get your source code.
> 
> I believe there is a missconception here, perhaps on my part. 
> But the license is a issued by one party to one other.
> 
> Lets call the issuer A and the other B.
> 
> If A gives B a software product under GPL then A must provide 
> source code to B upon request. B has no obligations to anyone,
> not even if B modifies the code.
> 
> A third party, lets call them C, has no rights to the product or 
> source, it's just when B gives the product to C that the 
> restrictions apply. And even then B has no obligations to A. Any 
> modifications made by B is only available to C upon request.
> 
> GPL is a license to "protect" the user.
> 
> /P
> _______________________________________________
> Simh mailing list
> Simh at trailing-edge.com
> http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh