Re: [OT] open source distribution

[Arnt Karlsen <arnt@c2i.net>]

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 08:22:45 +0200, 
"Stefan Waidele jun." <Stefan@Waidele.net> wrote in message 
<[🔎] 3F5042B5.6080605@Waidele.net>:

> Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> > On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 00:17:47 +0200, 
> > "Stefan Waidele jun." <Stefan@Waidele.net> wrote in message 
> > <[🔎] 3F4FD10B.6020309@Waidele.net>:
> > 
> >>Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 12:09:10 -0500, 
> >>>Alex Malinovich <demonbane@the-love-shack.net> wrote in message 
> >>><[🔎] 1062176950.18712.2.camel@Thief>:
> >>>
> >>>>[...]
> >>>>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; 
> >>
> >>No, it's not:
> >>http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPubl
> >>ic
> >>
> >>This faq should pretty much answer the question brought up in this
> >>thread.
> > 
> > ..it _is_, it says: "But if you release the modified version to the
> > public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source
> > code available to the program's users, under the GPL."  ;-) 
> 
> But he does not release it. He wrote the software, and he keeps it for
> himself on his harddisk. (He does not even need to put a comment in
> like   /* This stuff is GLP'd */, since nobody gets the program)

..correct, if nobody gets it, noboby uses it.  If Emmas client gets 
it, Emmas client also needs access to the source under the GPL.
 
> <promise>This is my last post to the list on this topic,</promise>

..I got this message twice, which one promise applies, Stefan?  ;-)

-- 
..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.