license idea (revised)
ryo at ilohamail.org
Wed Jul 16 22:05:42 UTC 2003
On 7/16/2003, "John Cowan" <jcowan at reutershealth.com> wrote:
>Ryo Chijiiwa scripsit:
>> On 7/16/2003, "Mark Rafn" <dagon at dagon.net> wrote:
>> >I don't think that most agree that the requirement to give source and
>> >distribution rights to all users is an acceptible solution.
>> Perhaps my interpretation of the GPL is incorrect, but I thought that was
>> one of the basic requirements in that license.
>No. The GPL requires only that anyone who gets a modified binary gets
>modified source as well. It does not require that you deliver modified
>source to anyone on demand. I may make changes to my GPLed software, and
>as long as I don't distribute the binary, I can keep the source to myself.
And we go in circles :-) What I'm saying is that users of modified
versions of my software should have access to the source code, the same
way users of modified GPL executables have access to the code. I don't
think that my software being made available for use by others through a
network instead of binary distributions should give it a different
treatment under the same license. But it does, and that's why I'm
looking for alternatives.
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
More information about the License-discuss