Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 16th May 2006 22:13 UTC, submitted by adstro
Permalink for comment 125315
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-06
Because the GPL is, afaik, the only one which *requires* you to make your changes available. AFAIK all the others are more relaxed on this point.
It isn't the *only* one. LGPL, CDDL, MPL, etc. Unless you mean *all* changes, even ones that some might consider "derivative works."
If you mean *all* changes, there are many licenses that have the same basic requirements of the GPL for modifications:
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/rpl.php
or the QPL used by Qt:
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/qtpl.php
the nethack license:
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/nethack.php
the Jabber Open Source license:
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/jabberpl.php
I could list more, but the point is that there are a lot of licenses that require *all* changes to be made available under the original license. The GPL just happens to be the best known.