From: Eero Saynatkari <ruby-ml@...>
Date: 2005-11-08T18:34:17+09:00
Subject: Re: which open source licence?

Dido Sevilla wrote:
> On 11/8/05, petermichaux@yahoo.com <petermichaux@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>>I think I've seen an open source licence that requires any
>>modifications/improvements to be reported back to the original project.
>>Anyone here know if that licence really exists?
>>
> 
> 
> An open-source/Free Software license cannot enforce this, as they
> operate solely on the bounds of copyright law. Copyright licenses can
> only govern what you must do when you make copies of something.
> Modifying or improving software is not copying it. In order to do what
> you describe and make it legally enforceable, you would need a legally
> binding *contract* that every person who receives your software must
> agree to.

This is actually not quite accurate. There is an argument to be made on
the effects of the *licencing* of copyrighted work, and that is the crux.
The copyright is an absolute which allows the author to dictate the terms
abiding which --and only abiding which-- the copying can be done. While
the copyright itself is very narrow in scope, its absoluteness allows
much leeway in defining the licencing terms.

In effect, the author can set any arbitrary rules as his licencing;
if the user fails to comply, they automatically lose the licence and
therefore the standard copyright clause kicks in and the user will be
in violation of it (since it allows no copying whatsoever).

Sure, it is not exactly a breeze demonstrating in court that it is a
reasonable request to mandate anyone using your program must wear only
duck-patterned underwear but it is a reasonable interpretation of
the applicable laws, particularly with a strict interpretation of
the copyright law :)

>>Is there a good, brief summary comparison of the main open source
>>licenses? I've looked around and the comparisons are either simpleton
>>or just lists of way to many licenses.
> 
> 
> The Free Software Foundation has a list of many licenses and gives
> their qualifications as to whether or not they are Free Software
> licenses, how well they work with that most ubiquitous of Free
> Software Licenses, the GPL, as well as some licenses that you may
> think are Free but actually have some restrictions that make them not
> Free:
> 
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
> 
> The comparison is mainly to the GPL.

E