Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 25th Sep 2009 14:01 UTC
Legal In France, the GPL has scored yet another major win in court. What makes this infringements case special is that it was filed not by the developers of the infringed-upon code, but by users, demonstrating that they, too, can successfully enforce the GPL. Since I noted on a few threads here on OSNews that a lot of people still fail to grasp the difference between an open source license and an EULA, I figured I'd take this opportunity to explain the difference one more time - using hand-crafted diagrams!
Thread beginning with comment 386583
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Innacurate and flamebait
by spiderman on Mon 28th Sep 2009 13:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Innacurate and flamebait"
spiderman
Member since:
2008-10-23

If so, then it is not only a restriction, as it would be also a protection. Your sentence in the article is therefore inaccurate.

By that logic, the requirement to distribute the code with BSD licensed software can only be seen as a restriction when looked upon from the perspective of more permissive proprietary licensed that don't require you to distribute the code.
That would ignore completely the point of the requirement and exposes your uninformed opinion that there is no point in distributing source code (as it was ONLY a restriction). No, it is not ONLY a restriction and can not be seen ONLY as a restriction, OBVIOUSLY. Most people would think that not having the source code is quite a bigger restriction than not having to distribute it.

And, as I said, it is flame bait, too.
It was totally unnecessary. You article should stick to differences between EULA and OSS licences. Or if you have to talk the differences between the GPL and the BSD, do it factually.

Reply Parent Score: 2

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

All copyright restrictions are protections to someone. The BSD license has no protections/restrictions, the GPL does.

Reply Parent Score: 2

spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23

Lack of protection can also be seen as restriction. It's all relative to one's point of view.
Anyway, the BSD license DOES have restrictions/protections. It is mandatory to distribute BSD licenced software with the code and you can not change the license unless the modifications are 'substantial'.
Trying to represent rights in bar charts is usually a bad idea. Putting in text that this is the only possible point of view is also a bad idea. And comparing the BSD and the GPL on some computed "sum of rights" is a very bad idea. It's a lot more complex than that actually. It's better to avoid the subject all together.

Edited 2009-09-28 14:24 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

So if it's something that you're in favor of, then it's a protection. And if it's something that you're opposed to, then it's a restriction? Gotcha.

Reply Parent Score: 2

spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23

So if it's something that you're in favor of, then it's a protection. And if it's something that you're opposed to, then it's a restriction? Gotcha.

Exactly my point. What is so hard to understand? Glad someone got it finally.

Reply Parent Score: 2