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

[Johnny Billquist]

On 2015-06-08 09:07, Pontus Pihlgren wrote:
> 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.

I think the larger difference is that you (Pontus) are talking about if 
you make a modification, but never distribute it to anyone. In that 
case, you are right in that you do not have to release the sources 
either, as you have not released it in any form at all.

>> 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 think you are talking past each other. I think Clem don't even 
consider the option of modifying the code and never telling anyone.

>> ​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.

Which is essentially anyone. Since, if you do release it, you cannot 
restrict who can use it.

>> 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 think this once more comes down to released/not released status, right?

>> 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 :)

GPL is viral, in that it it attaches itself to any new software that 
comes in the vicinity, and forces itself on that too.

In essence, you cannot even link (even dynamically) to a GPL library, 
without your code also being forced to be GPL.

They currently draw the line there, so communication over a network does 
not draw you into GPL, but I see the potential problem here, as RPC over 
a network is more like a dynamic library than something like FTP, and by 
the logic applied to dynamic libraries, we might soon see a case where 
someone writing a program that calls a service using RPC will be forced 
to be GPLed as well...

We'll see...

	Johnny