maybe-ITP: bsdiff

[Karl M]

Hi All...

Could it be distributed in kit form? That is, could it require the toold to 
build it, and be built in the postinstall script?

Thanks,

...Karl

>From: "Tacvek" Subject: Re: maybe-ITP: bsdiff
>Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 15:48:19 -0400
>
>
>>It's hard to see the BSDPL as an open-source license, since only one
>>level of branching from the "one true authorized source" is allowed:
>
>This only applies to commercial distribution. AFAICT this is some sort of 
>weird ANTI-GPL license, which works is much the same way as the GPL, except 
>also allows commercial distribution.
>
>Basically this license is designed to ensure that any derivative works 
>distributed in an open source manner, can always be commercially 
>distributed.
>The main (ideological) difference between this and the LGPL, is that the 
>LGPL allows somebody to 'take away' the rights of commercial distribution, 
>by using the conversion to GPL clause, but this licence does not.
>
>The author intended this to be an anti-copyleft open source licence, and 
>that could meet the criteria for the open source definition. This lience is 
>ambigious.
>
>If the licence was better written and clearly met the open source 
>definition, there is still annother problem. Based on the fsf's definitions 
>of derivitive works, both workes to be linked together need permision to 
>link to the other. Most licences do not restrict linking, but both the GPL 
>and the licence the BSDPL was meant to be do. The GPL exception on would 
>allow linking, but the other licence would not thus preventing the 
>distribution.
>
>The above concept is often called the 'viral' nature of the GPL, but i 
>think that is a poor way to describe it.