Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 14:50:23 -0500 From: Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@online.fr> To: underway@comcast.net Cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: New Open Source License: Single Supplier Open Source License Message-ID: <20040125195023.GA2469@online.fr> In-Reply-To: <yjhdyju9mk.dyj@mail.comcast.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Gary W. Swearingen wrote: > Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@online.fr> writes: > > Richard Schilling wrote: > >> The [L]GPL license makes this the submission of changes mandatory, > > > > No, it does not. Please do your homework before posting such rubbish > > in public. What is mandatory is distributing source code if you > > redistribute your binary. Since you are not planning to allow > > redistribution, this is a non-issue. The GPL and LGPL emphatically do > > not require submission of changes, private or public, back to the > > original author. Private changes can remain in your hands, and you're > > required to give source code only to parties to whom you distribute a > > binary. > > While it's probably low risk to assume that some private derivatives > are not subject to the "all third parties" clause, it's none-the-less > debatable, given the GPL's loose use of the word "distribute", which > doesn't have a well-known meaning, at least to typical licensors and > licensees who are the ones who are ostensibly using the language. The > liberal interpretation of the GPL pretends that "distribute" and > "publish" are interchangeable and that the GPL's "distribute or > publish" is thus redundant. Copyright law uses the phrase "distribute > to the public", which leads one to assume that there can be private > distribution too. E.g., distribution between two friends or two > companies or within a company or even between one person's two > computers. It's not clear what the GPL means, even if the FSF has > made clear what they believe it to mean. (The FSF isn't the only > user of the GPL, of course.) If you distribute the binary to your friend, you should distribute the source to your friend. If you don't, it's a problem between your friend and you. But no third party can demand source to your program just because you distributed it to your friend. The GPL is very clearly written, it's just that people don't read it and for some reason go by totally bogus third-party interpretations. I strongly suggest you read it and think about it for yourself. > Going further, I seriously think it's possible to read GPL clause 2 > as an intertwined-rights license. That is, it could be read as saying > that you may modify and distribute the derivative, but it doesn't > say you may modify and not distribute the derivative. You don't require its permission for that. If you legally have a copy of it, you can do what you like to it, just as if you legally purchased a book, you may scribble on its margins. Try reading up, just a little, on copyright law. See also Dan Bernstein's take on this (without reference to the GPL): http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html Rahul
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040125195023.GA2469>