Attached Link: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/

Actually Penguinisto - Open Source CAN mean exactly that. For example - take a BSD-derived license for instance. I can take code under that license, change parts of it to my liking and then sell said result. Having made a derivative of that code - so long as I keep the original copyright notice in the code (usually top of the file) and allow people to utilise said "original code", I CAN lock down the derivative. Microsoft has done exactly this with BSD code. As BSD is classified by the OSI as an "open source" license - I believe you are wrong in this instance. What I CANNOT do is lock down the original version for sale - I need to make a derivative product. It is the copyright on the derivative version which gives me the rights to lock it down for sale. The Project Human license for instance gives one this right. As for differences in code & mesh - I still disagree with you. sure code can be "compiled", but that is not what is at issue here. We are talking about the "open source" license applying to the source here, be that code or mesh. So long as the license is not GPL-like (and hence must be applied to to all derivatives as well as the original) then this is quite possible. One does not need to include "derivatives" and "modifications" in a license for it to be Open Source. The OSI (Open Source Initiative) only requires that "the license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software." It does not say that "the license MUST enforce the distribution of modifications & derived works under the same terms and conditons". GPL muddies the waters when talking about open source because it is (as Deecey & Pengy point out) a "perpetual open sourcing" license & happens to be in the media alot more often than other open source licenses. Some like to call it viral, but that is a term I will refrain from in the following discussion. GPL requires that if one changes licensed source code and distributes the result of these modifications in compiled or source form - one also must make available ALL the source for the application in question (as it is now deemed as bing licensed under GPL). This is what prevents say Microsoft taking parts of the Linux OS and incorporating into their next version of Windows. However, GPL is not the only "open source" license out there. Just go the link above to see the wide variety of licenses clasified as "open source". Most of which are nowhere near as restrictive regarding derivative works as the GPL.