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

[Bradley Miller]

At 11:39 AM 8/22/01 -0500, Mike Coleman wrote:
>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.

That's what has always been in the back of my mind, and Hal's definition is
the best way ever put that I've seen.  That makes perfect sense from a
company standpoint, because I can take something and massage it to meet the
needs of a customer and then sell that to the customer.   Let's face it,
even with really good GPL software, there will always be massaging that is
needed to make things work right or perhaps more inline with a customer
need.   As long as I'm not changing things and distributing it back to
*EVERYONE* with changes, it shouldn't be an issue . . . right?   

Take an example -- someone uses a peice of software that makes a directory.
 The software has only rudmientary parts/peices in it, so developer A
decides to expand it to meet his/her clients needs.   That development
branch is release to the client -- not back to the original owner . . .
right?  Why would someone care to use a peice of software that suddenly has
the "edge case" scenario?   I like to look at most GPL software as a good
tool that needs accessories.  I'd hate to have ?? people making a good tool
into a Swiss Army knife -- (especially the monster that has so much that it
won't fit into your pocket without a weird bulge).   If there is some
obvious need or a bug fix that will suit everyone's purpose, then put it
into the program and give it out for everyone.  

Any thoughts/ideas?

-- Bradley Miller