 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson schrieb:
> Well, if the company you've done the work for distributes it, they also
> are required to distribute the code.... :-)
Yeah. And still - */I/ DO NOT....!* :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 01:56:06 +0200, clipka wrote:
> Jim Henderson schrieb:
>> Well, if the company you've done the work for distributes it, they also
>> are required to distribute the code.... :-)
>
> Yeah. And still - */I/ DO NOT....!* :-)
I don't think, actually, that you're permitted to restrict them from
distributing the changes, because the base code is GPL. But you'd have
to ask an expert in the GPL about that.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson schrieb:
>>> Well, if the company you've done the work for distributes it, they also
>>> are required to distribute the code.... :-)
>> Yeah. And still - */I/ DO NOT....!* :-)
> I don't think, actually, that you're permitted to restrict them from
> distributing the changes, because the base code is GPL. But you'd have
> to ask an expert in the GPL about that.
What I meant was, again, "*/I/ DO NOT GPL IT!*" - as in, "no matter what
the company does with the code (and they'd probably have all the rights
to do it) - */I/ WILL NOT BE THE ONE TO OFFICIALLY PUT IT UNDER THE
GPL!*" :-)
It's a matter of pride :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 03:11:39 +0200, clipka wrote:
> Jim Henderson schrieb:
>>>> Well, if the company you've done the work for distributes it, they
>>>> also are required to distribute the code.... :-)
>>> Yeah. And still - */I/ DO NOT....!* :-)
>
>> I don't think, actually, that you're permitted to restrict them from
>> distributing the changes, because the base code is GPL. But you'd have
>> to ask an expert in the GPL about that.
>
> What I meant was, again, "*/I/ DO NOT GPL IT!*" - as in, "no matter what
> the company does with the code (and they'd probably have all the rights
> to do it) - */I/ WILL NOT BE THE ONE TO OFFICIALLY PUT IT UNDER THE
> GPL!*" :-)
>
> It's a matter of pride :-)
But technically your code ends up being GPL'ed. :-)
(Yes, I'm engaging in a little "let's see how much I can wind clipka up"
here. ;-) )
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 03:11:39 +0200, clipka wrote:
>
> > Jim Henderson schrieb:
> >>>> Well, if the company you've done the work for distributes it, they
> >>>> also are required to distribute the code.... :-)
> >>> Yeah. And still - */I/ DO NOT....!* :-)
> >
> >> I don't think, actually, that you're permitted to restrict them from
> >> distributing the changes, because the base code is GPL. But you'd have
> >> to ask an expert in the GPL about that.
> >
> > What I meant was, again, "*/I/ DO NOT GPL IT!*" - as in, "no matter what
> > the company does with the code (and they'd probably have all the rights
> > to do it) - */I/ WILL NOT BE THE ONE TO OFFICIALLY PUT IT UNDER THE
> > GPL!*" :-)
> >
> > It's a matter of pride :-)
>
> But technically your code ends up being GPL'ed. :-)
>
> (Yes, I'm engaging in a little "let's see how much I can wind clipka up"
> here. ;-) )
I believe as long as he's just the "ghost writer" for the company, he's ok with
it... ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis schrieb:
>> (Yes, I'm engaging in a little "let's see how much I can wind clipka up"
>> here. ;-) )
>
> I believe as long as he's just the "ghost writer" for the company, he's ok with
> it... ;)
Hey, what are *you* doing in our thread? :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 23:11:12 -0400, nemesis wrote:
>> (Yes, I'm engaging in a little "let's see how much I can wind clipka
>> up" here. ;-) )
>
> I believe as long as he's just the "ghost writer" for the company, he's
> ok with it... ;)
Heheheehhe
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
