25 Jul
2009
25 Jul
'09
8:14 p.m.
On Sat, 2009-07-25 at 16:23 -0400, laseray(a)gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday 25 July 2009 15:53:01 Grammostola Rosea
wrote:
> >>...
> >> The guy removed the preview version from his website.
> >> You don't have to release the source of development versions.
> >
> > Yes you do. This has been explained previously.
>
> I asked this on #gnu , they told me, it is not necessary
I do not know where these people get there info but it
cannot be
the GPL. Thus you have more people that cannot read the GPL properly.
Go to the FSF and read the FAQ, not #gnu. Read the GPL.
GPL is a license the copyright holder may or may not use to distribute
his work. Having done a release under GPL, however, does not further
encumber the copyright holder: he may decide to never release any new
development under GPL or choose, as many people choose, to release only
stable releases.
The idea behind GPL is that if someone else modifies the code and
redistributes this work, he must provide the code (under the same
license) for anyone receiving the software. That is the point of the
license.
Note that the copyright holder may stop handing out the software under
GPL. Copies made before this decision may be redistributed as per GPL if
the copier (=licensee) wants to (or is obliged to, as per the license)
redistribute it. However, the fact that the author has given out this
software under GPL earlier does not give you leverage to force the
authors hand to get the source code of previous or future versions: he
doesn't distribute it under GPL anymore. It's analogous to the copyright
holder changing the price of his product: previously the price was $0.00
(plus the viral nature of the license) while you would now have to pay
$10,000.00 and sign an NDA.
(Of course this becomes much more hairy when there are more than one
copyright holders. Or mixed licenses.)
Sampo