[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Axiom-developer] Re: [Maxima] Re: GCL compliance and Bill Schelter
From: |
Bakul Shah |
Subject: |
[Axiom-developer] Re: [Maxima] Re: GCL compliance and Bill Schelter |
Date: |
Thu, 24 Jul 2003 21:25:44 -0700 |
> 3) This having been said, it is my opinion that axiom would be better
> served by a GPL license. It is of course completely up to the
> axiom developers and any other relevant parties, certainly not me,
> but I feel that the existing BSD license places all the volunteer
> work being poured into axiom at risk of being hijacked by a
> commercial fork of the code.
Just clarifying something....
The code base that such a commericial project may start from
*does not* suddenly become closed. An open source developer
is perfectly free and able to continue working on the
non-commercial branch. No volunteer work gets lost. What
you may not get are *further* changes made by the commercial
project.
What may happen is that someone other than the volunteers
makes money. Is that what you are calling "being hijacked"?
> The last thing I am is a lawyer, but
> my understanding of the BSD license is that anyone, including the
> developers, can, if they so chose, relicense their copy/modified
> version of the code under the GPL. This does not violate the BSD
> license, to my understanding, and should require no special
> permission. After all, one can make a commercial fork of BSD code
> without permission, so one should certainly be able also to make a
> GPL fork of said code.
Commercial forking is allowed and done *with* the permission
given in the BSD license! But I believe you can not take BSD
licensed code and put it under GPL due to the following in
the BSD license:
* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
* modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
* are met:
* 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
* documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
As I understand it, by requiring that source be available
GPL modifies condition 2. above and hence runs afoul of the
BSD license. But I am not a lawyer!
But if this is the case and if Lisp & Maxima remain intermingled
does it mean Maxima can't be used with CMUCL?:-):-(
Personally I am *glad* there are two competing free licenses
even if there are headaches such as this one.
- [Axiom-developer] GCL compliance and Bill Schelter, root, 2003/07/24
- [Axiom-developer] Re: [Maxima] GCL compliance and Bill Schelter, C Y, 2003/07/24
- [Axiom-developer] Re: GCL compliance and Bill Schelter, Camm Maguire, 2003/07/24
- Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: GCL compliance and Bill Schelter, Mike Dewar, 2003/07/25
- Re: [Maxima] Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: GCL compliance and Bill Schelter, Camm Maguire, 2003/07/25
- Re: [Maxima] Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: GCL compliance and Bill Schelter, Mike Dewar, 2003/07/29
[Axiom-developer] Small patches, Camm Maguire, 2003/07/24
[Axiom-developer] RE: GCL compliance and Bill Schelter, Mike Thomas, 2003/07/25
[Axiom-developer] Re: GCL compliance and Bill Schelter, Richard Stallman, 2003/07/25
[Axiom-developer] GCL compliance and Bill Schelter, root, 2003/07/24