Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Rjack wrote:
>> It attempts to secure the exclusive rights of a modifying author
> > who accepts GPL code by attempting to force them to license their
> > modifications "to all third parties" under terms of the GPL.
>
> It doesn't force anyone to do anything, any more than Microsoft
> forces anyone to pay for Office. The modifying author is not
> permitted to make modifications or convey them under copyright
> law unless he receives permission to do so from the rights holder.
> That permission, the GPL, comes with terms. If he does not find
> the terms acceptable, then he should not accept them.
>
> In fact, your premise is already flawed - the modifying author has
> no right to make modifications in the first place unless he already
> has accepted the GPL.
You forgot some little tidbit: You can modify/change/use all you want, as
long as you don't *distribute* the modified code.
That means: A company for example can take GPLed code, modify it to their
needs and use the modified code internally. They are absolutely clear to
do that, and there is *no* obligation to supply any source code to anyone
else in that case. They are obliged to supply source only then when they
distribute the modified binaries.
So, yes, the modifying author can do that just fine, if he has accepted
the GPL or not is irrelevant as long as he does not distribute the code
In short: "Rjack" is full of it
--
Who the fuck is General Failure, and why is he reading my harddisk?
|
|
