|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Jim Henderson schrieb:
>> 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.
Apparently we have very diverging interpretations of what constitutes
"distribution" vs. "modifying for your own purposes", when "you" denotes
a company.
>> 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.
I don't think we need to fuss about /that/.
My point is that in the case I described, to my understanding any act of
distribution [of GPL'ed software] isn't even happening in the first
place, so the question of what form it must be distributed in (which the
GPL happens to answer quite unambiguously) is perfectly moot.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |