Re: [tlug] GPL and Open Source Licences

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com>]

>>>>> "simon" == simon colston <simon@example.com> writes:

    >> Note that other licenses have different provisions.  The BSD
    >> licenses would permit you to keep your code private---but only
    >> if the _upstream_ is BSD.

    simon> So under the BSD licence the customer would not have the
    simon> right to redistribute my code without my concent?

No, if _you_ use the BSD license then your customer may sell the code
under practically any license he likes.  For example, it is rumored
that Microsoft's networking code is mostly BSD code straight from the
Berkeley distributions.  If you _received_ the code under the BSD
license, then you can write any terms you like.

The standard "some advantages of free license but not really free"
licenses are the Aladdin Free[sic] Public License, which allows
unlimited modification and redistribution for non-commercial purposes,
and the Creative Commons "with restrictions" licenses.  There are
plenty of others but the AFPL is one of the earliest by a free
software advocate and Creative Commons was designed by Larry Rosen, a
hacker-turned-lawyer, to address what he considered the failings of
the GPL as a free license, as well as various common restrictions
expressed in standard legalese for the use of those who would prefer
to not go all the way on a first date.

-- 
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences     http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
               Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
              ask what your business can "do for" free software.