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

[Pontus Pihlgren]

On Sun, Jun 07, 2015 at 08:45:14PM -0400, Clem Cole wrote:
> ​I fear you might be missunderstanding/confusing the "usage" rights and the
> "ownership" rights.​

Perhaps, yes.
 
> On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 4:00 AM, Pontus Pihlgren <pontus at update.uu.se> wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> >
> ​Sadly - that is not correct.  If B modifes the code, then B is also
> obligated to make it available - period.  That's the virus and what make
> its powerful as well as difficult.

No, it is in fact correct:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic

> ​I wonder if you are getting stuck on the "upon request" part.​  If B
> modifies the code, the truth is anyone can ask B for the sources to the
> "dervitive work."

No, not anyone, just the program's users. See the above link.

> BTW: forcing B to make her/his sources available without any charge is
> exactly the behavior RMS intended with the license.

Indeed, but not to anyone asking.

> I'm not sure it protects the user in any way other than tries to guarrentee
> that a user of an invention/work, can get the sources for it if they want
> it and B still exists to ask.   Which (if you believe in a completely
> shared commons) is a fine thing.

Yes, this is my favourite part of the GPL licenses. I have the drawings 
to my house for a good reason, why not the source for software I use.

> You need to go back the Symbolics vs. Lisp Machines, Inc wars to truly
> understand the whys and hows of the GPL virus.

It's an interesting history, I'm familiar with it. Although I object to 
the term virus in this context :)

/P