On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 23:28:02 +0200, clipka wrote:

> Jim Henderson schrieb:
>>> (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.
> 
> If the customer compiles the binary himself, then obviously I have /not/
> given him the binary. Even if I am the one to press the button starting
> the compile on his system with his tools, I don't think I have.

If you haven't given them the binary, then you have distributed the code 
which then makes it compliant with the GPL.

>> 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.
> 
> No, their /express/ wish is only that modifications /not/ staying
> inhouse must be distributed with the rights and means to modify,
> recompile, and redistribute.

Their express wish is that if you modify their code and distribute it in 
binary form, you have to distribute the modified code.  Period, end of 
story.

> It is actually also their /express/ wish that nobody is /forced/ to
> distribute any modifications they make to the software to adapt it to
> their own needs.

So long as they don't distribute the modified binary, yes.  If I make 
modifications to pan for my own use, I'm not required to do anything.  
But if I share the binary with someone else (say, I package it as an RPM 
and make it available for download or give it to a friend), then the GPL 
*requires* that I make the source available.

> The BusyBox fuss, on the other hand, wasn't about such inhouse mods, but
> about software distributed as part of an appliance. Which obviously
> doesn't normally come with the means to modify and recompile.

True, but  it's about distributing it.  They distributed the busybox 
binary and didn't distribute the code.  That's a no-no under the GPL.

Jim

Post a reply to this message