From: Michal Suchanek <hramrach@...>
Date: 2007-10-16T02:36:42+09:00
Subject: Re: MIT vs. Ruby/GPL License

On 15/10/2007, Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> wrote:

>
> The BSD license actually provides for the code covered by the license to
> be forevermore "open source".  There's a common misconception that the
> BSD license and similar licenses somehow allow you to make the code in
> them proprietary.  That's not legally possible, as the BSD license
> contains an inheritance clause that mandates further copies of the code
> be distributed under the same license.  The difference between that and
> the voracious nature of the GPL is that the BSD license allows covered
> code to be "wrapped" in code of another license, such that a complete
> project can be distributed under the licensing terms of the copyright
> holder's choice while the specific parts of it that are licensed BSD
> remain under the BSD license's terms.  The GPL demands that everything
> that is connected to code it covers must also be distributed under its
> terms.
>
> So . . . the MIT license may very well be quite suitable to situations
> where you "demand that all derivative works also be OSS".  That really
> depends on how you mean that statement to be interpreted.

The major difference from the "forever opensource" point of view is
that BSD license does not require you to distribute the code in source
form.
This allows you to only distribute the binaries of a modified version
of the software and keep the source, making the software as
proprietary as it ever gets. People can disassemble it, but they can
do the same with proprietary software (the license may forbid it but
it is unenforcible technically and often even legally). To disallow
copying the binaries just link with a proprietary module.

Thanks

Michal