(Jumps up on soapbox to preach to the choir)

I never really understand what the big deal is. All the license says is you
need to distribute the source code. It doesn't say you have to install the
source code. So a company modifies some GPL code, stick the source on a CD
and distribute the machines. How many people are going to actually look at
the source, especially if you don't tell them they have it? And just because
you release the source code with the software doesn't mean you can't sell
it. Open Source (aka free software) doesn't mean free as in "free beer" it
means free as in "free speech".

(Steps off on soapbox, stumbles on platform, rolls down stairs [oh sorry,
that's President Ford])

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Monty Harder [mailto:lists@kc.rr.com]
> Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2001 10:54 PM
> To: Mike Coleman; kclug@kclug.org
> Subject: Re: Fwd: AMIOPEN: Linux, free software and its 
> industry. (Was:
> Loki Software seems to have filed for bankruptcy.)
> 
> 
> 8/18/01 5:26:03 PM, Mike Coleman <mkc@mathdogs.com> wrote:
> 
> >> source if you don't "distribute" object code.  IANAL, so I 
> don't begin to
> >> understand where The Line is between simply using code and 
> "distributing" it,
> >> but I'm sure there is something very important about this wording.
> >
> >Yes.  My guess is that they want individual users personally 
> using their own
> >code to have great latitude and that they want development 
> teams to do
> >development without necessarily having to distribute source 
> to all of the
> >intermediate versions.  
> 
>   So how's this for a scenario:  A company installs modified 
> GPLed software on computers that it owns, but leases to 
> customers.  Have they "distributed" anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> majordomo@kclug.org
>