GPL Terms (Was: AMIOPEN: etc....)

[Duston, Hal]

Monty,

I think I can simplify.  If you give some one access to a
binary file that contains GPL'd software that you have 
modified, _then_ you have to give _them_ the modifications 
that you have made.  You have to permit them to redistribute 
the modifications under the GPL.  

However, there is one exception here.  If _you_ are the 
originator of the GPL'd software, i.e. the copyright holder, 
then you are under no such obligations.  You can even license 
the _same_ software under contradictory license terms.

For example, if I modify a GPL program (not copyrighted by me),
and give the binary to you (Monty), I must also give you the 
source code to my modifications.  I am, however, under no 
such obligations to Mike, since I haven't given him the 
binary containing the modifications.

IANAL, but that is my understanding.
Hal

Monty Harder [mailto:lists at kc.rr.com] 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.