From: Chad Perrin <perrin@...>
Date: 2007-10-16T05:12:28+09:00
Subject: Re: MIT vs. Ruby/GPL License

On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 02:36:42AM +0900, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> 
> 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.

Software gets a *lot* more proprietary than "only available as a binary".
It's also rather difficult to get existing copies of source out of
circulation, so taking a copy of the publicly available source and
compiling it, then distributing only the binary, doesn't really
accomplish much in terms of making it more "closed", in practice.

Your comment about what is and is not enforceable strikes me as premature
and lacking strong supporting evidence.

-- 
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Leon Festinger: "A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him
you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts and figures and he questions
your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point."