[Ilugc] [OT] To be or not to be FOSS?
sundaram at fedoraproject.org
Fri Feb 22 01:47:17 IST 2008
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 1:18 AM, Rahul Sundaram
> > wrote:
>> > But the 2nd party, which recd the program as per 3.a. has a copy of
>> > the source and if it wishes to redistribute the object code,
>> > necessarily has to redistribute the source also. Only, in this case
>> > the 3rd party cannot pester the 1st party for the source. The 1st part
>> > CANNOT restrict the 2nd party from redistributing it!!!
>> Correct. Redistribution of source code cannot be restricted. Once free,
>> always free. That is the nature of all copyleft or reciprocative
>> licenses including the GPL.
> Which takes us back to my earlier contention that you can only make it
> harder for the whole world to get your source code. You can never deny
> And all along I was thinking you were contending otherwise :-)
Read back what I said carefully. I was merely asserting that
distributing to third parties is not a requirement of the GPL license
depending on how you to choose to distribute the source code. I only
need to provide it to the people I distribute the binaries to under 3 a)
A few common misconceptions:
* Public source is not a requirement of the GPL license and never has been.
* If I choose to modify a GPL'ed source base and use it privately, I
don't need to distribute my modifications.
* While you can demand the source if I distribute the binaries, there is
no requirement for me to provide you the binaries in the first place.
More information about the ilugc