Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 14:17 UTC, submitted by Oliver
Thread beginning with comment 257362
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Agreed, 100%. Another borderline case. I don't offer any judgement myself, either way, as I can't really work out if the GPL applies here or not.
You've said it yourself here over and over again-- the GPL is a copyright license (even though the GPL3 may have meandered into contract law, but that's another topic), and copyright only covers distribution. The software, in this case, is not being distributed, so there is no requirement to release the source code. It's not a borderline case at all.
You've said it yourself here over and over again-- the GPL is a copyright license (even though the GPL3 may have meandered into contract law, but that's another topic), and copyright only covers distribution. The software, in this case, is not being distributed, so there is no requirement to release the source code. It's not a borderline case at all.
Fair enough. I'm perpared to go with this reasoning.
The only caveat: GPL v3 now applies to activities beyond pure and plain distribution of the code.
But you are probably right, it doesn't seem to apply in this instance.






Member since:
2007-02-17
This is a good question, and one to which I do not have a ready answer. It is not clear from the plain language of the GPL license.
Agreed, 100%. Another borderline case. I don't offer any judgement myself, either way, as I can't really work out if the GPL applies here or not.