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

[Mike Coleman]

"Duston, Hal" <hdusto01 at sprintspectrum.com> writes:
> 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.

I think Hal is probably correct here in terms of what the current GPL actually
requires.  The question of what *should* be required is different, and I agree
with zscoundrel's comment there; it seems like a company making GPLed software
available as an ASP should also be required to distribute their mods under
analogous conditions.

I heard that the FSF is working on a new version of the GPL to handle this
"loophole".

-- 
Mike Coleman, mkc at mathdogs.com
http://www.mathdogs.com