"Jeremy (mailing list box)" <listbox@unix-boy.com> writes:
> I never got around to writing it up, but I've always thought a tweak
> to the BSD license was needed. Something like the following:
>
> 3. IN THE CASE OF CLOSED SOURCE, PROPRIETARY AND PRODUCTS COVERED
> BY NDA, REDISTRIBUTIONS OF BINARIES AND SOURCE ARE PERMITTED ONLY
> IF EXPLICIT PERMISSIONS IS GRANTED BY THE AUTHOR AND, IF
> APPLICABLE, LICENSE FESS ARE PAID TO THE AUTHOR.
>
> Obviously it would need to be tweaked and reviewed by a legal beagle,
> but a tweak like this would allow the source to remain open, without
> compelling anyone to use a specific open source license, but it also
> allows code to be use in proprietary products in a way that isn't
> detrimental to open source.
Sorry, this one kept gnawing at me.
What you've attempted to do here is make the BSD into something it
isn't. In fact, if you look at how Sun uses the GPL to license Java or
how MySQL uses the GPL to license their database, you'll see that they
are doing exactly what you want.
People who want to make proprietary versions of GPLed software have that
option, they just have to negotiate the terms with the copyright holder.
Of course, it makes it easier when there is a single copyright holder
(as in the case of MySQL or Java) instead of multiple copyright holders
(as in the case of the Linux kernel).
It also helps when the copyright holder isn't ideologically tied to the
concept of the GPL — as is the case for GCC.
In fact, where there are multiple copyright holders for BSD licensed
software, adding terms like you have above would make your modified BSD
license just as much an impediment to creating proprietary software as
the GPL is.
Mark.
___________________
Nolug mailing list
nolug@nolug.org
Received on 12/16/08
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : 12/19/08 EST