Re: GPL & Binary
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005, João Pinheiro wrote:
Justin Pryzby wrote:
You, as the author, can do whatever you want. One who modifies the
source code (which you aren't distributing) must make it available
under the GPL. So, one cannot modify the source code. I don't see
anything preventing you from doing this.
Thank you for the clarification.
Justin didn't mention that even though YOU can do whatever you want with
code you wrote, it won't do much good to release under GPL, as nobody else
will have full source code to distribute, so they will be unable to
distribute your code at all, modified or unmodified.
Choosing a license isn't about what you want to be able to do, it's about
what you want others to be able (and not be able) to do.
That's not quite it. I'm concerned with students using the code for
those specific ADTs and routines in subjects that I might also be
taking. There would be problems if both some student and I submitted a
project with identical pieces of code. Not only would such projects be
rejected, both of us would end up being accused of copying.
If you have some dated proof (say, a sourceforge commit, or even giving
your dean a copy of the code before you distribute, to prove it's yours),
this goes away. Include a header at the top of the file specifying how to
get the original copy and proof of original authorship, and only those who
fraudulently claim your work as theirs will be punished.
The best option is to release the application source along with the
compiled routines and ADTs.
IMO, the best option is to publish it all, in some way that you can prove
the work is original to you if you expect that proof will be needed later.
Second best is to publish a partial-source application, as you say, but
you're best off using a BSD-like license for this, or nobody will be able
to redistribute it at all.
Mark Rafn firstname.lastname@example.org <http://www.dagon.net/>