On TV.com: MEGAN FOX Photos
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 25 of 26:
Next »
« Previous
You're wrong, it's not a restriction
The "restriction" you are criticizing only applies if you want to distribute the application or product that you make by including GPL'ed code. Only in that case, you must provide the source at the same time.

But there's NO restriction on the way you can use the GPLed code privately. You can modify it as you want and even use it with proprietary code as long as this is for your own private usage.

No the GPL gives NO RESTRCITION to users. And it is NON-DISCRIMINATING. Every one can use it, even for commercial purpose.

If you are a private organisation using GPLed software in your site, there's absolutely nothing wrong if you've modified it without publishing your modifications. So you can use it to create a corporate web site, exposed to the public, as long as what you distribute on your website does not contain any part of this code.

If you distribute any GPL code on your website, then you must provide its corresponding sources, but you don't have to distribute at the same time the sources of the softwares you are using but not distributing.

Your private modifications that you don't want to distribute remain yours. You have the author's right on these modifications, even if you choose to include them in a distribution; the GPL mandates that you include a history for your modifications and that you sign them, but you are not allowed to remove the original copyright covering the parts that you have not created yourself. So other users can trace which change you made, and decide themselves if they wnt to include them or not. The GPL forbids anonymous contributions that can damange the reputation of the initial contributor, and forbids removing contribution histories from the sources.
Posted by: PhilippeV   Posted on: 03/29/07 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

Looks good...  Tim Patterson | 03/28/07
Cut off your nose to spite your face?  NonZealot | 03/28/07
Perhaps, perhaps not..  TtfnJohn | 03/28/07
GPL getting tougher on patent deals  Loverock Davidson | 03/28/07
Ristrictive? Compared to commercial software?  bspelcha@... | 03/28/07
re: Ristrictive? Compared to commercial software?  joe6pack_z | 03/28/07
Looks like someone is jealous of me (NT)  Loverock Davidson | 03/28/07
Comparing the wrong licenses  NonZealot | 03/28/07
GPL has always been restrictive  Loverock Davidson | 03/28/07
And if that code happens to be somebody elses?  pueblonative | 03/28/07
anonymous contributions are forbidden  PhilippeV | 03/29/07
GPL getting more power to restrict your rights.  jolumoar | 03/28/07
I think you mean 'less tough'  Resuna | 03/28/07
How Low Can You Go?  Ole Man | 03/28/07
If you didn't post the same three  xuniL_z | 03/28/07
Just the opposite of your contention  Ole Man | 03/29/07
It's not a news! A mere copy of the FSF's mail  PhilippeV | 03/28/07
Do you think that business on screwing the people (rights, freedom, etc.)..  Vily Clay | 03/28/07
wow...  doas777 | 03/29/07
er...spelling  doas777 | 03/29/07
Debating without logical reasons is a feature of animals and doas777. (NT)  Vily Clay | 03/29/07
Vily Clay's response if just offensive  PhilippeV | 03/29/07
Too soft in fact,cause? the truth is much worse,not many can handle it (NT)  Vily Clay | 03/29/07
Exactly. The GPL is a model  PhilippeV | 03/29/07
You're wrong, it's not a restriction  PhilippeV | 03/29/07
response was intended to bspelcha@...  PhilippeV | 03/29/07

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement

SmartPlanet

Click Here