Re: GPL: what does redistribution mean?
On Fri, Jun 11, 1999 at 01:41:51PM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> Up to a certain degree, I'm sure some people will have interest in extending
> and modifying the program for their own research. Let's say some research
> group finds my codebase useful, and extend it into a direction I haven't had
> the time to work on, or just didn't occured to me was possible. If this is
> done by one person, in the privacy of their own computer, that's ok, they
> don't have to publish the modifications.
>
> If this person publishes a paper based on my work and his modifications,
> that's ok, too, he doesn't have to publish the modifications.
Umm... are you calling this a feature or a bug?
> But what if this person gives copy of the modified sources (or binaries) to
> a colleague... in the same research group? Is that "internal use"? Does
> that qualify as redistribution? I think it does, I just want a
> confirmation. Even further, if the group (Foo Bar et al) publishes a paper
> for which the modified program was used, can I demand the changes to be
> published, based on the fact I would have evidence (because of the "et al")
> the program was redistributed? (I admit it wouldn't be hard evidence)
>
> I'm just trying to make this program free software, and prevent the usual
> abuse that I've seen on the "scientific community" at the same time...
> (everyone is willing to publish papers, but almost noone is willing to
> publish source code -- and some papers are worthless without access to the
> programs used to perform the simulations, but yet they are published)
Why don't you license the program under a modified GPL?
"This program is licensed under the GPL with the exception that section
three also applies to any scientific paper based on data obtained from the
Program (or a work based on it under section 2)."
Would this do what you want it to?
On a tangental note, does section 3b really specify _written_?
-=- James Mastros
--
First they came for the fourth amendment, but I said nothing because I
wasn't a drug dealer. Then they came for the sixth amendment, but I kept
quiet because I wasn't guilty. Finally they came for the first amendment,
and by then it was too late to say anything at all."
-=- Nancy Lebowitz
cat /dev/urandom|james --insane=yes > http://www.rtweb.net/theorb/
ICQ: 1293899 AIM: theorbtwo YPager: theorbtwo
Reply to: