On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 01:20:09 +0200, clipka wrote:

> 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.

Well, I'm basing it on the FSF's definition of what constitutes 
distribution, and since it's their license, their definition is the only 
one that matters. :-)

If you (as a contractor) modify code for a client (the company) and the 
base code is GPL code, you (the contractor) are required under the GPL to 
provide the source to the client (the company) because giving them a 
binary copy of the program is distribution.

If you (as an employee) modify code for your employer, the code stays 
with the employer either way.  You can't quit the job and take "your" 
code with you; most employers will claim the work you've done for them as 
an employee belongs to them regardless of the license for the code.

So either way, the company is entitled to the source code you've produced.

>>> 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/.

It seems to be similar to what you're discussing.  Maybe I'm 
misunderstanding.

> 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.

See above.  Maybe we're in violent agreement. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message