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