|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |