On 3/11/07, Chad Perrin <perrin / apotheon.com> wrote:

> I'm a cynic, according to my own definition: an optimist that has
> learned from life experience.  I am concerned with the notion that the
> BSD license doesn't ensure that we will always have source code
> available to us when we get the binary.

Yes, that is a concern.

> On the other hand, I am *more*
> concerned that the *forced distribution of source code* mandated by the
> GPL is actually more restrictive in practice.  For one thing, it
> prevents anyone that didn't have the foresight to get the source at the
> same time as the binaries from redistributing the binaries in his or her
> possession, unless he or she can still find the source.

The more I think about this though, I'm not sure I want someone's
binaries without the source.  The thrust of the FSF and for that
matter the open source movement is *open source*, not gratis
distribution of binary software.  Having the source available with the
binaries also provides for at least a minimal audit trail to the
licensing terms of those binaries.  If you just download the binaries,
and you can't tie them to source, how to you as a user show that you
have a license to the software?

The real selling proposition of open-source is that it provides better
protection to the person or organization using the software that it
will continue to be available and maintainable.  If only the binaries
are available, due either to neglect by or the future absense of the
distributor, this advantage is lost.  Witness the recent suggestions
for a 'living will' for the owner of an open source project, it's
motivated by the same idea which is to keep the project alive past the
disinterest or the demise of the originators.

> For another, it
> requires, in many cases, for those with limited resources to choose
> between maintaining an archive of source code with redundant backups for
> several years after distributing binaries, or simply not distributing.

Or distributing through a larger entity such as, say, rubyforge or sourceforge.

> I definitely prefer the BSD license.  It would be better to have access
> to a binary with no source than neither (to compare worst-case
> scenarios).

Well, you can get lots of that kind of software from organizations
like Microsoft. <G>

> Of course, I find both annoyingly limited in applicability to a single
> form of copyrightable work, and the BSD license's applicability to
> derivative works is ambiguous.  I still prefer the BSD license over the
> GPL, especially considering recent examples of the FSF threatening legal
> action against small community Linux distributions for debatable
> violations of GPL terms.

Or one could view it as a wake-up call that keeping open-source open
requires distributing open source.

Of course that's just my opinion.

-- 
Rick DeNatale

My blog on Ruby
http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/