Re: The Show So Far
Jeremy Hankins <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> email@example.com (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> > Jeremy Hankins <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> >> But despite the above I do want to point out that the argument
> >> about "the only thing stopping the possessor" can easily (and,
> >> IMHO, more justifiably) be used against the GPL and in favor of
> >> BSD-style licensing. Simply s/possessor/possessor of source/ to
> >> see what I mean.
> > No, and this is an important point.
> > The BSD-license does not restrict modification to the possessor of
> > source. If you have a binary, you can still change it. There is no
> > restriction, and if you are clever enough, you can do it.
> > So the situations are not parallel, and crucially so.
> How so? If anything, what you're saying here is a further argument
> against the need for a requirement to pass source along with binaries,
> since, according to you, we don't really need the source to make
Binary only distribution *inhibits* changes, and makes them *harder*,
without making them strictly impossible. The GPL says that the costs
of including source are trivial--an extra CD, and therefore requires
you to share them.
The BSD license does not require such sharing, but that does not imply
that it views sharing as *wrong*.