On 15/10/2007, Chad Perrin <perrin / apotheon.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 02:36:42AM +0900, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> >
> > The major difference from the "forever opensource" point of view is
> > that BSD license does not require you to distribute the code in source
> > form.
> > This allows you to only distribute the binaries of a modified version
> > of the software and keep the source, making the software as
> > proprietary as it ever gets. People can disassemble it, but they can
> > do the same with proprietary software (the license may forbid it but
> > it is unenforcible technically and often even legally). To disallow
> > copying the binaries just link with a proprietary module.
>
> Software gets a *lot* more proprietary than "only available as a binary".
> It's also rather difficult to get existing copies of source out of
> circulation, so taking a copy of the publicly available source and
> compiling it, then distributing only the binary, doesn't really
> accomplish much in terms of making it more "closed", in practice.

Please, read what you are responding to. The critical part is you
*modify* it. Then the modification is only available as part of you
proprietary product which you make as proprietary as you like.

>
> Your comment about what is and is not enforceable strikes me as premature
> and lacking strong supporting evidence.

Whatever. But unless you also require a separate hardware, physical
security, and whatnot, it is possible to disassemble the software, and
in practice this option is used.

Thanks

Michal