Jim Henderson schrieb:
>> So as all I do is just modify the GPL'ed code and not distribute it (it
>> stays on their machines all the times, right?), just providing that
>> company with some additional (non-GPL'ed) code of my own design, I fail
>> to see the problem.
> 
> Your code, by definition, is required to be under the GPL because it is 
> incorporated in a GPL'ed program.  That doesn't mean you have to 
> distribute it publicly, but you do legally (by the GPL license) have to 
> provide the company with the code.

(1) Code incorporated into a GPL'd program does /not/ need to be GPL'd, 
unless the whole smash is to be distributed.

(2) In that hypothetical example, I /am/ hacking the code into the 
company's copy of the source files anyway - how closer can I possibly 
get to providing them with the source code?? :-P


But after reading the GPL again, I guess you're right insofar as in 
order to circumvent having to GPL the changes, I'd have to grant the 
company any rights to the modifications I make - including the right to 
redistribute them (which they'd have to do under the GPL).

Did I mention before that I think the GPL sucks...?

Post a reply to this message