On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 07:46:59 +0200, clipka wrote:

> 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.

If you give the binary to your customer, then you've just distributed it, 
making it necessary to GPL the code.

> (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...?

You are entitled to that opinion.  If you don't want to release your 
code, base your product on code licensed under BSD, or link in if it's 
LGPL.

But if you want to modify someone else's program which is released under 
the GPL, their express wish is that modifications must be distributed and 
that their code needs to continue to be distributed.  Just look at all 
the lawsuits over BusyBox.

Jim

Post a reply to this message