[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Combining proprietary code and GPL for in-house use

On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 11:04:31PM -0400, none wrote:
> I am not sure why I need too. I am assuming they are all complied with. The
> only condition of significance is
> "b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or
> in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be
> licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of
> this License."

You've left out:

    a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
    stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.


    c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
    when run, you must cause it, when started running for such
    interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an
    announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a
    notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide
    a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under
    these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this
    License.  (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but
    does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on
    the Program is not required to print an announcement.)

Someone had to comply with these provisions when creating the derivative
work, or it's not a legal derivative work.  Correct?

> But note it applies only to a work that is distributed or published
> that contains or is derived from the GPL code. If you recall the
> example, A and B are separately distributed (not as a derivative work)
> and a derivative work is created by the end-user but not further
> "distributed or published".

Are you're saying that the end user is complying with (a) [and,
for interactive programs, (c)]?


Reply to: