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

[zscoundrel]

I have to agree with that.  That is the clearest explanation I have ever 
heard.

Duston, Hal wrote:

> 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