10 Apr
2004
10 Apr
'04
1:44 p.m.
On Sat, 2004-04-10 at 12:58, will(a)malefactor.org wrote:
On Sat, Apr 10, 2004 at 04:08:09PM +0100, Simon
Jenkins wrote:
In some cases this is really sufficient.
Marek Peteraj wrote:
Nobody had a problem with Native Instruments just packaging the sources
on a CD with Final Scratch: http://eca.cx/lad/2003/11/0010.html :)
There's no obligation to make the object/executeable generally available.
There is as the the name of the GPL implies. See my previous (longer)
post.
From your previous post: >> The keyword 'General Public'
applies to each Section of the GPL , and
>> you have to interpret every statement made by the GPL with respect to
>> 'general public'.
I can find nothing in the GPL or the FAQ to substantiate this claim.
Anyway, I think you're parsing the name wrong: IMHO Its a
General(Public(Licence)) not a (General Public)Licence.
>> The GPL also uses the term ,any third
party'.
And the FAQ clarifies exactly what is meant by "third party": Under some
circumstances (ie GPL section 3c) Distributees may pass along your written
offer of source code when they pass along your binary. Your offer must
extend to these third parties (they are "parties" to the licence agreement,
btw) as well as to your original distributees.
You absolutely DO NOT have to make executeables available to the general
public when you modify a GPL program. You don't even have to make them
available to anybody at all if you dont want to. Nor, in fact, do you
even have to inform anybody that these modified versions even EXIST.
But if (and only if) you distribute an executeable, then you are obligated
to make source available to those who you distribute it to, and to "third
parties" as described above.
Simon Jenkins
IANAL, but I'm 99% sure that when you give someone a GPLd executable,
you're only obligated to provide that one person with the sources, not the
"general public" (read: everyone on earth).
Depends on who is someone. :)
Of course, I wouldn't put it
past Stallman, but it seems way too screwy...
Actually the more i look at the GPL the more is think that it's a very
cool lincense that indeed does its job in protecting opensource
developers.
Marek