From: Chad Perrin <perrin@...>
Date: 2007-10-16T06:28:28+09:00
Subject: Re: MIT vs. Ruby/GPL License

On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 06:15:40AM +0900, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> On 15/10/2007, Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Please, read what you are responding to. The critical part is you
> *modify* it. Then the modification is only available as part of you
> proprietary product which you make as proprietary as you like.

I'm always confused by what that's supposed to hurt, all things
considered -- so it tends to slip past my notice.  Consider the two
options:

  1. Someone modifies something, and doesn't release the source.  In the
  process of this, that person cuts himself off from any benefits of open
  source development.
  2. Someone doesn't modify it, and uses something else instead -- and
  still doesn't release the source.  In the process of this, that person
  cuts himself off from any benefits of open source development.


> >
> > Your comment about what is and is not enforceable strikes me as premature
> > and lacking strong supporting evidence.
> 
> Whatever. But unless you also require a separate hardware, physical
> security, and whatnot, it is possible to disassemble the software, and
> in practice this option is used.

I see.  You meant enforceable in practice, in terms of trying to make
sure nobody does it -- not in court, in terms of sticking it to someone
you caught doing it.  I guess that distinction wasn't clear to me in your
earlier comments.

-- 
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
W. Somerset Maugham: "The ability to quote is a serviceable substitute for
wit."