Kevin Brosius on Sun, 20 Jul 2003 21:45:19 -0400

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [PLUG] Which license?

Tobias DiPasquale wrote:
> On Sat, 2003-07-19 at 21:40, William H. Magill wrote:
> > My understanding of the GPL is that the author GIVES UP "control" of
> > the code when they put it under that license -- that is to say, the
> > author 1) can no longer derive any "private" use of the code (i.e.
> > extractions/derivations/modifications etc. of that code are also
> > GPL'd), and 2) has no ability to say who can and who cannot use (or
> > modify) the code for whatever reason.
> The copyright is the real power. With it, you can revoke these rights at
> a later date, if you wish. Also, the copyright is the key to the power
> of dual-licensing such as Sleepycat's Berkeley DB software (which is
> both GPL and proprietary, depending on what you want to do with it).
> Also, there can certainly be "private" uses of the code, as long as you
> don't distribute software based on that code. For instance, if you use
> GPL'd software that __YOU'VE__ modified in an appliance or service, you
> don't need to distribute the source, since you're not "distributing" the
> software, only a service. (this is what TiVo and DirecTV do; a TiVo is
> nothing but a 200Mhz Linux box with a HDD, TV tuner and some Python
> scripts to control it all)

This seems incorrect as and recent
linux kernel discussions about wireless routers will attest
Distributing products containing GPL software seems to require the
release of that software, or the return of the code changes to specific

However, if such code was used internally to a company, and not released
as a product, I don't believe there is any requirement to release
changes to that code.

Philadelphia Linux Users Group        --
Announcements -
General Discussion  --