……关于这些观点有大量的讨论供你阅读和思考。参见：https://www.google.com/search?q=open+source+business+models 如果你还没读过的话，我建议你去读读 Lawrence Rosen 写的《开放源代码许可：软件自由与知识产权法》。https://www.rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm
…there's plenty of discussion of these points for you to read over and consider. See: https://www.google.com/search?q=open+source+business+models One thing I would suggest, if you haven't yet, is to read Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and Intellectual Property Law by Lawrence Rosen. https://www.rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm
迄今为止关于这个主题最好的著作是 Lawrence Rosen 在他的书《开放源代码许可》中写下的：http://www.rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm 可以免费在线阅读——或者买本实体书。与那些没什么价值的书不同，Rosen 真正提供了一个用于思考开源模式的思维模型。哪怕你只关心……
By far the best work on this subject has been written by Lawrence Rosen in his book "Open Source Licensing": http://www.rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm Free to read online - or buy a hardcopy. Unlike less useful works, Rosen actually provides a model for thinking about open source models. Even if you only care…
…modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software [...] Note that MIT includes "sublicense". ISC does not. This is a big difference. See page 87 in chapter 5 of Rosen's "Open Source Licensing" book [1] for a discussion of the importance of this. [1] https://www.rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm
……法律。即便是那些基础的“邮件级别”的法律问题，实际上也是非常复杂的，试图把它们简化到外行听得懂的水平没有任何好处。在这点上我更倾向于 Lawrence Rosen 在其著作《开放源代码许可：软件自由与知识产权法》中的观点：> 那些在律师试图编写高质量软件时嗤之以鼻的程序员，在编写自己的开源许可证时却毫不犹豫。他们的……
…the law. Even the basic "email-grade" legal problems are actually very complicated, and it is no good trying to simplify them down to a lay level. I'll defer to Lawrence Rosen on this, from his book Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and Intellectual Property Law: > The same programmers who cringe when a lawyer attempts to write high-quality software feel no qualms about writing their own open source licenses. Their…
我不是律师（IANAL）。我只是一个研读过 Lawrence Rosen 写的《开放源代码许可：软件自由与知识产权法》这本书的普通人。原帖对 D.4 提及不多。D.4 的第一段在我看来没毛病。但我担心其在……中的“澄清”（第二段）
IANAL. I'm just a random person who studied the book, "Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and Intellectual Property Law," by Lawrence Rosen. The OP doesn't mention D.4 much. The first paragraph of D.4 seems fine to me. But I worry the "clarification" (2nd paragraph) in…
…cede less control, and provide more footholds for enforcement. Remember that GPL has (sometimes) worked as intended in adversarial commericial settings [2,3]. [1] https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/open-source-licensing/0... [2] https://www.tp-link.com/us/support/gpl-code/ [3] https://www.zdnet.com/article/software-freedom-conservancy-w...
……关于这些观点有大量的讨论供你阅读和思考。参见：https://www.google.com/search?q=open+source+business+models 如果你还没读过的话，我建议你去读读 Lawrence Rosen 写的《开放源代码许可：软件自由与知识产权法》。https://www.rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm
…there's plenty of discussion of these points for you to read over and consider. See: https://www.google.com/search?q=open+source+business+models One thing I would suggest, if you haven't yet, is to read Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and Intellectual Property Law by Lawrence Rosen. https://www.rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm
迄今为止关于这个主题最好的著作是 Lawrence Rosen 在他的书《开放源代码许可》中写下的：http://www.rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm 可以免费在线阅读——或者买本实体书。与那些没什么价值的书不同，Rosen 真正提供了一个用于思考开源模式的思维模型。哪怕你只关心……
By far the best work on this subject has been written by Lawrence Rosen in his book "Open Source Licensing": http://www.rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm Free to read online - or buy a hardcopy. Unlike less useful works, Rosen actually provides a model for thinking about open source models. Even if you only care…
……修改、合并、发布、分发、再许可和/或出售软件副本的权利 [...] 请注意，MIT 包含了“sublicense”（再许可）。ISC 则没有。这是个巨大的差异。关于其重要性的讨论，请参见 Rosen 所著《开放源代码许可》一书第5章第87页 [1]。[1] https://www.rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm
…modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software [...] Note that MIT includes "sublicense". ISC does not. This is a big difference. See page 87 in chapter 5 of Rosen's "Open Source Licensing" book [1] for a discussion of the importance of this. [1] https://www.rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm
……法律。即便是那些基础的“邮件级别”的法律问题，实际上也是非常复杂的，试图把它们简化到外行听得懂的水平没有任何好处。在这点上我更倾向于 Lawrence Rosen 在其著作《开放源代码许可：软件自由与知识产权法》中的观点：> 那些在律师试图编写高质量软件时嗤之以鼻的程序员，在编写自己的开源许可证时却毫不犹豫。他们的……
…the law. Even the basic "email-grade" legal problems are actually very complicated, and it is no good trying to simplify them down to a lay level. I'll defer to Lawrence Rosen on this, from his book Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and Intellectual Property Law: > The same programmers who cringe when a lawyer attempts to write high-quality software feel no qualms about writing their own open source licenses. Their…
我不是律师（IANAL）。我只是一个研读过 Lawrence Rosen 写的《开放源代码许可：软件自由与知识产权法》这本书的普通人。原帖对 D.4 提及不多。D.4 的第一段在我看来没毛病。但我担心其在……中的“澄清”（第二段）
IANAL. I'm just a random person who studied the book, "Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and Intellectual Property Law," by Lawrence Rosen. The OP doesn't mention D.4 much. The first paragraph of D.4 seems fine to me. But I worry the "clarification" (2nd paragraph) in…
……让渡更少的控制权，并为执法提供更多的抓手。别忘了，GPL 在对抗性的商业环境中（有时）是能够按预期发挥作用的 [2,3]。[1] https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/open-source-licensing/0... [2] https://www.tp-link.com/us/support/gpl-code/ [3] https://www.zdnet.com/article/software-freedom-conservancy-w...
…cede less control, and provide more footholds for enforcement. Remember that GPL has (sometimes) worked as intended in adversarial commericial settings [2,3]. [1] https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/open-source-licensing/0... [2] https://www.tp-link.com/us/support/gpl-code/ [3] https://www.zdnet.com/article/software-freedom-conservancy-w...