AMIOPEN: Linux, free software and its industry. (Was: Loki Software seems to have filed for bankruptcy.)

[zscoundrel]

Technically, the mods would be for benefit of the entity that created 
them and since no distribution of the modified software (binaries or 
source) exists, so the legal requirement to share probably would not 
exist. 

However, if the improvements are not a proprietary secret (ie: the 
changes directly impact the companies profitiablility) and they would 
add functionality or value to the software for the general public, it 
would be a wonderful thing ETHICALLY, for the company to SHARE these 
improvements with the community that supports the software they use. 

If they put years of work into these improvements, they could even 
release their own distribution to recoup some of the cost of developing 
the improvements.

Monty Harder wrote:

> 8/20/01 11:47:03 AM, Mike Coleman <mkc at mathdogs.com> wrote:
> 
>> If you're a commercial entity and you're making a number of copies
>> proportional to the size of your customer base, and putting it on machines
>> they have physical control over, that sure sounds like distribution.
> 
> 
>   What if the computers remain physically located at the company's site?  It's basically in the 
ASP business, offering to customers the service that the 
> software provides, but not in any way putting that software into someone else's hands.
> 
>   Say, for example, that our good friends at Google make certain mods to GNU software, and use it 
to serve up searches at blistering speed.  Do they have any 
> obligation to share the changes they've made?
> 
>   It's not that I necessarily disagree with you - I'm just trying to figure out where The Line is 
here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Of course, I am not a lawyer.  These are just my opinions, I could be 
wrong.  (at least according to my wife!)