4 ms·
This is exactly what MIT and BSD licenses do.
by thesuitonym 10y ago
This is exactly what MIT and BSD licenses do.
- arglwarg 10y agoNope (also that would imply there is not functional difference between non-reciprocal licenses like MIT/BSD and a reciprocal one like MPLv2). The original article highlights LibreOffice and its success using the reciprocal MPLv2 not without reason. [Edit: mixed up the first paragraph.]
- snovv_crash 10y agoFalse. If I take a BSD/MIT library and fork it, I don't need to contribute the changes back. The MPL(v2) forces forks to be open source, but any files added to the project can remain closed source allowing it to be used as a library for closed source applications.
- thesuitonym 10y agoOkay but that's not what I was replying to. The post I replied to made no mention of reciprocity, only saying that the original code was available.
- eropple 10y agoHe explicitly calls out "copyleft source code." That means reciprocity.
- quadrangle 9y agoCopyleft is about pay-it-forward not reciprocity. There's zero reciprocity in copyleft besides the incidental fact that updates paid-forward to others might be discovered and accessed by the original person who gave you the software (or that you could share the updates back in reciprocity, but that's not part of the license, it's just something you might do).
- bonzini 10y agoNo, MIT and BSD allow proprietary derivatives of any kind, throwing away any expectations of reciprocity. MPL and LGPL draw a line between code that is allowed to be distributed under a proprietary license, and code where the copyleft applies.