From: "Tacvek" Subject: Re: maybe-ITP: bsdiff
Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 15:48:19 -0400
It's hard to see the BSDPL as an open-source license, since only one
level of branching from the "one true authorized source" is allowed:
This only applies to commercial distribution. AFAICT this is some sort of
weird ANTI-GPL license, which works is much the same way as the GPL, except
also allows commercial distribution.
Basically this license is designed to ensure that any derivative works
distributed in an open source manner, can always be commercially
distributed.
The main (ideological) difference between this and the LGPL, is that the
LGPL allows somebody to 'take away' the rights of commercial distribution,
by using the conversion to GPL clause, but this licence does not.
The author intended this to be an anti-copyleft open source licence, and
that could meet the criteria for the open source definition. This lience is
ambigious.
If the licence was better written and clearly met the open source
definition, there is still annother problem. Based on the fsf's definitions
of derivitive works, both workes to be linked together need permision to
link to the other. Most licences do not restrict linking, but both the GPL
and the licence the BSDPL was meant to be do. The GPL exception on would
allow linking, but the other licence would not thus preventing the
distribution.
The above concept is often called the 'viral' nature of the GPL, but i
think that is a poor way to describe it.