Re: Comercial version of Swarm

[Alex Lancaster]

>>>>> "MD" == Marcus G Daniels <address@hidden> writes:

>>>>> "AL" == Alex Lancaster <address@hidden> writes:

AL> Remember, once open-source, always open-source.

MD> Not so in the case of some free software licenses falling under
MD> the open-source label.

I regretted writing that statement about 5 seconds after I sent that
mail.  ;-) This is what happens when you try and go for the snazzy
sound-bite...

IANAL(*), but you're right of course.  I should amend that to say
"once copyleft (e.g. GPL), always copyleft (e.g. GPL)" (assuming one
attempts to distribute it or a derived work).  A BSD-style license
(which is considered an "open source" license under the OSI
definition, but is not a strong copyleft like the GNU GPL) won't cut
it in this case because one could take modifications private.

MD> For example, NeXT lifted the work of the CMU Mach group and made a
MD> modified version proprietary for years.

MD> Swarm is licensed under the GNU General Public License which
MD> prevents proprietary variants.  All derived works of Swarm must be
MD> freely redistributable.  This is assuming they are distributed --
MD> of course the GPL preserves the users right to privacy, too..

Another good reason to use the GPL over other "open-source" licenses
for free software projects, IMHO.

Alex

(*) IANAL = I am not a lawyer
-- 
   Alex Lancaster * <address@hidden> * www.santafe.edu/~alex 
Dept. of Integrative Biology, UC Berkeley (ib.berkeley.edu) * +1 510 642-1233
    & Swarm Development Group, Santa Fe, New Mexico (www.swarm.org) 

                  ==================================
   Swarm-Support is for discussion of the technical details of the day
   to day usage of Swarm.  For list administration needs (esp.
   [un]subscribing), please send a message to <address@hidden>
   with "help" in the body of the message.