From: Michal Suchanek <hramrach@...>
Date: 2007-10-18T02:23:02+09:00
Subject: Re: MIT vs. Ruby/GPL License

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

Not necessarily. He can still benefit from the improvements and fixes
that go into the original project if the modification was relatively
clean. I do not want to judge if this is evil or not. It is possible
and it is one of the things GPL tries to prevent.

There were a few cases when GPL really won this. For one, there are
wireless routers on th market that have firmware based on Linux and
other GPL components. When people found out the manufacturer was
forced to release the source so that people could make customizations.
However, in some cases GPL has lost. Modified firmware for TiVO can be
built but won't work because it won't be signed by the manufacturer.

Also GPL makes this possible at some cost. GPL software is less
reusable than BSD licensed one, and because of some less careful
wording in GPL and/or other opensource licenses GPL modules cannot be
used in software covered by those licenses.

>   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.

There are some provisions in the law that allow reverse engineering.
At least in some places and to some extent. However, I do not follow
the development closely and I am not aware of any case when such
provision was actually used and defended in the court. And there are,
of course, many more provisions against anything ;-)

Still in real life the practical (technical) enforceability is more important.

Thanks

Michal