[Crito]

> "his GNU software license is one of the most restrictive licenses out there."

Of "open source" licenses perhaps. In the grand scheme of software licenses, it is pretty fucking permissive. Most software licenses don't let you anywhere near the source, don't let you modify the code, and don't let you redistribute or share the software.

[baddox]

> Most software licenses don't let you anywhere near the source, don't let you modify the code,

Are there any software licenses where the source code is provided but you are prohibited to view or modify it?

[Crito]

I wager so. Many commercial video games have plaintext script files buried in their installations. I am not in the habit of reading licenses very carefully, but I suspect more than a few of those do not lay out the right to view or modify those files. (Although 'modders' do anyway of course.)

Software licenses which allow you to view the code but not to modify it are fairly common.

Typically, software licenses grant none of these rights.

[amyjess]

I can't think of any where you can't view it, but there are several licenses that allow you to view but not modify.

Microsoft is in the habit of letting development partners view their source but not publish or modify it, and then there's software like UW Pico that have licenses that allow viewing by the general public but not modification.

[Guvante]

Microsoft is certainly not the only one who did this. Many business to business deals involve read only access to source code (usually by platform providers).

[dkuntz2]

I mean, the GPL technically isn't an open source license. It's a Free Software license.