Re: GPL & Binary
Thank you for the reply!
> 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.
But would they still be able to distribute the source (without the
binaries) or does the license force them to distribute the ENTIRE package?
> 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.
I'd rather not take any risks on this, specially considering what
happened to a friend of mine last year. A student stole his source while
he was away from the laptop and submitted it himself. The result was
that both both of them got kicked out of the subject even though the
other guy admitted that he had stolen the source and my friend proved
that he had coded it himself. They completely disregarded such proof and
forced my friend to take the entire subject again.
> 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.
I would prefer to publish it all but, taking what I referred on the
previous paragraph into account, I think that I will go with the second
best option and release it under a BSD-like license.
- João Pinheiro