 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 06:41:30 -0400, SharkD wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> When a project, no matter how well known, is still at 0.xxx after six
>> years, it's probably because it really does actually still suck to the
>> point where you don't want to try to use it in a professional setting.
>>
>>
> OpenOffice is at version 3.1. I've encountered data corrupting bugs in
> every version I've tried including the most recent.
That's impressive, because I use OpenOffice 3.1 (and have used version
2.x and 3.0 as well as even the 1.x versions), and I've never had data be
corrupted in it. Ever. Even when the application crashes, if the files
were saved, the data isn't corrupted.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
SharkD wrote:
> OpenOffice is at version 3.1. I've encountered data corrupting bugs in
> every version I've tried including the most recent.
I never said it goes the other direction. ;-) And of course MS it doesn't
matter what the version number is if you haven't gotten a SP yet.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Understanding the structure of the universe
via religion is like understanding the
structure of computers via Tron.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Nicolas Alvarez
Subject: Re: What I'm learning about open source
Date: 27 Aug 2009 01:29:57
Message: <4a9619d5@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> When a project, no matter how well known, is still at 0.xxx after six
> years, it's probably because it really does actually still suck to the
> point where you don't want to try to use it in a professional setting.
>
What about Wine?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson schrieb:
> 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 that basically boils down to what I was saying earlier:
If I as a contractor am not hired to /provide/ them with a /modified/
work, but to /perform/ modifications to /their/ copy of the work, then I
see the role as equal to that of the employee - and yes, I'm probably
only allowed to carry out such modifications to the GPL'ed code if my
contract with the company states that the changes are theirs.
Still, I do /not/ distribute code nor binaries, and therefore am /not/
obliged to GPL those changes myself. It's up to the company to decide
whether they want to do that or not.
I must confess that this distinction is apparently moot in practice, but
still - *I DO NOT GPL IT, DAMN!* :-P
> See above. Maybe we're in violent agreement. :-)
Only for practical purposes, not in theory ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> I've just completed (as of yesterday) updating my Open Enterprise Server
> 2 system here at home - it's a Linux box, but the eDirectory tree started
> on a NetWare 4.01 system back in the early 90's. I definitely am a geek,
> running NetWare at home. :-)
>
> The NW system had been upgraded to 4.11, and later to 5 and 6 - and then
> I moved it into a VMware instance (it was handling printing for my home
> network), but the host system lost power and when it came back up, the
> vmdk file was corrupted. :-(
>
> So now printing is handled by that host system instead. Time to move the
> printer to the server, I think. :-)
>
Just how many machines and/or users have you got on your system? The
word overkill comes to mind ;-) Seems a little like using Maxima to
balance your cheque book to me :-) I stand in awe but ...
*Walks away shaking head, but still impressed*
John
--
"Eppur si muove" - Galileo Galilei
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
