Re: [OT] open source distribution
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 12:09:10 -0500,
Alex Malinovich <demonbane@the-love-shack.net> wrote in message
<[🔎] 1062176950.18712.2.camel@Thief>:
> On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 10:42, Emma Jane Hogbin wrote:
> > Hopefully a (quick) question...if I make a product which is open
> > source I don't have to *distribute* the product, do I?
> >
> > Background: a potential client may or may not understand the
> > benefits of open source work. If I make something for them which is
> > licensed under GFL and uses other products, which I have written and
> > are under the same license, is there any obligation on my part (or
> > the client's part) to distribute the software? i.e. can something be
> > open source but not available (for lack of a better term).
>
> IANAL, but I certainly don't see any problem with it. The GPL is
> around to maintain the rights of the code, or in the way that most of
> the world's legal systems look at it, to pass the rights from user to
> user. What that means is that if I happen to get a copy of your code I
> can distribute it all I want. BUT, it does NOT mean that you HAVE to
> distribute it because you wrote it.
..Emma, if it _is_ contract work, and you have no authority to decide
the licencing, you will want to document that fact properly in the
source and in the binaries, so _you_ don't get sued for violating
the GPL and copyright law, instead of those Corporate Twin Hairs
who decide on the licensing.
..and, you will wanna document you "did the right thing and was
overruled", this includes advicing on licensing, tech, etc etc.
Video conference tapes, memos, meeting protocols, letters, emails,
these posts, etc helps you cover your own ass. ;-)
> I have a few dozen small programs that I've tacked a GPL notice onto
> just in case, yet that have never ventured off of my hard disk because
> they are one half step above being absolutely broken, and definitely
> not ready for prime-time. :)
..boooo, your practice here is in violation with the GPL; _whenever_
you build your own work (contract or employed or whatever) on code
under the GPL, you _have_ to make the these sources _AND_ 'your own
work' available to _whomever_ receives your work, _because_ you yourself
_distribute_both_ the GPL'ed code you built upon, and your own product.
..even if your source is _so_ugly_, that you don't want it on toilet
paper, because it will your ass dirtier, you _have_ to make your
source available. Source on toilet paper, qualifies under the GPL.
..now, I don't see any source code availability requirement _anywhere_
in the GPL towards the vast majority of people who does _not_ receive
the products of your own work, but then again IANAL. ;-)
..this means you will be in full compliance with the GPL if you supply
your source code on the same media as you deliver your work product on,
on, say, a computer disk under, say, '/usr/local/src/Emma'.
--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.
Reply to: