On mySimon: Cat Mate C20 Automatic Pet Feeder
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 1 of 34:
Next »
Get a clue
You download GPL code, you tweak it for your own operation, you maintain the tweak solely for your own use, but you don?t share the tweak, either for a market advantage, out of ignorance, or from pure laziness.

How do we enforce the GPL against users without causing a backlash?

The simple answer is, "that's not a violation."

The GPL only requires that you offer source to those to whom you distribute binaries. If "those to whom you distribute binaries" consists of the person you see in the mirror, then you only need to make source available to .... you.
Posted by: Yagotta B. Kidding   Posted on: 02/18/08 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use
Reply to Story Reply to Message

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

Get a clue  Yagotta B. Kidding | 02/18/08
I guess we'll have to start publishing our make.conf files  Michael Kelly | 02/18/08
Right  Richard Flude | 02/18/08
Heres's the problem with that....  DanaBlankenhorn ZDNet Moderator | 02/18/08
Once you start distributing a tweaked binary  Michael Kelly | 02/18/08
Assume for a second you are right...  TripleII | 02/18/08
Triplell, I hope you're right  DanaBlankenhorn ZDNet Moderator | 02/18/08
One solution would be to only share the tweaks among friends. So, you are  DonnieBoy | 02/18/08
This Has Been Discussed Often on Groklaw  dumptux | 02/19/08
Exactly.  Timpraetor | 02/19/08
RE: The next frontier for GPL Violations  dpnewkirk | 02/18/08
RE: The next frontier for GPL Violations  none none | 02/18/08
Here's the Clause  orcmid | 02/18/08
And then there's GPL 3  orcmid | 02/18/08
RE: The next frontier for GPL Violations  steve.mcjones@... | 02/18/08
As I said, everyone winds up distributing binaries....  DanaBlankenhorn ZDNet Moderator | 02/18/08
I don't see the mistake  Richard Flude | 02/18/08
The BSA is a bit worse than that. They don't have to PROVE theft.  hkommedal | 02/19/08
Rubbish  Richard Flude | 02/19/08
Hit the nail on the head  Ole Man | 02/22/08
Suggest You Re-read the GPLs  SwashbucklingCowboy | 02/18/08
Forgot to add  SwashbucklingCowboy | 02/18/08
Precisely. Dana, there IS NO Problem here.  dumptux | 02/19/08
Dana this just isn't a 'real-world' scenario  D. T. Schmitz | 02/18/08
My fear is it's becoming one...  DanaBlankenhorn ZDNet Moderator | 02/18/08
Not the same as what your article implies  Timpraetor | 02/19/08
The GNU GPL is a Trade Agreement that does NOT require distribution!  AGNUcius | 02/18/08
Re: The GNU GPL is a Trade Agreement that does NOT require distribution!  none none | 02/19/08
Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted...  Sysadm1n | 02/18/08
Time to study the GPL  mannyamador | 02/18/08
The situation you describe is not a GPL violation.  Letophoro | 02/19/08
RE: The next frontier for GPL Violations  DanaBlankenhorn ZDNet Moderator | 02/19/08
RE: The next frontier for GPL Violations  jadon | 02/19/08
It's a strange thing, indeed  Ole Man | 02/22/08

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
Click Here
advertisement
  • Smart Tech Expert advice on innovations in healthcare and the green technologies that make it happen. Find out more
  • Smart Business Discussion and advice on management issues that revolve around making your world smarter and more useful. More Smart Advice
  • Smart People The best and worst moves in the management and strategy trenches. Learn More