On 2005-08-08, at 0229, Andreas Aardal Hanssen wrote:
Specifically, what behavior does the GPL prohibit that you (or anyone else) feels should not be prohibited?Adding a mailbox format, adding a depot format, adding in-house extensions, authentication modules, and so on.
the GPL doesn't prohibit any of this. it prohibits writing these things and trying to DISTRIBUTE the changes, without those changes being licensed under the GPL as well.
As long as it's GPL (and once GPL, always GPL), any intern who can get a hold of the software can distribute it.
no.what the GPL says is that if a company wants to take a piece of GPL code, modify it, and NOT distribute it, that's fine- the modified code can be kept within the company and used for internal purposes. however, if they DISTRIBUTE the code- which means in any format, source, binary, embedded into a chip, whatever- then their modifications must be offered under the GPL as well.
if an intern (or contractor) is working on a project for that company, then he is considered "part of the company", and is able to use the modified code for projects within the company, but he is not allowed to use it for anything outside the company, and he is not allowed to keep a copy of the modified code for himself, unless the company agrees to release the changes under the GPL (because both of these activities constitute distribution, unless the company has told him not to, in which case it becomes theft.)
i know, i've been that contractor, and one of my clients was that company. i added some custom features to a GPL program for them, and they elected to keep my changes in-house rather than allow them to be distributed- which means that i don't even have a backup copy of the modified code.
if the company takes GPL code, changes it, and chooses not to release it, that's fine- the GPL allows that. but if they distribute the modified code at all, those modifications must be distributed under the same GPL license under which they obtained the original code.
And that's food for lawyers of course, but it's scary enough to shake away many businessmen.
what i've seen is that the part which scares away a lot of businesses is that if they use GPL code as part of something, they won't be able to sell the finished product under the traditional proprietary "no source code" terms that they've been using for years. the entire software industry seems to have this mentality of "locking up the code", because anybody who gets the source code can build the software and not have to pay for it.
the GPL means that they have to make a profit through some other means- usually through value-added support. redhat is making a killing by operating this way, but companies like microsoft avoid this. i see two reasons: (1) under their current proprietary model they're making money on the software AND on the support, and (2) the only way to guarantee a profit is to guarantee that people will need support, which kinda goes against the idea of writing quality software in the first place.
i don't think microsoft actually cares about licensing- if they could find a way to squeeze as much profit out of GPL software as they do from their proprietary software, i think they would release all of their own products under the GPL just for the benefit of having millions of unpaid people around the world improving their code for them.
microsoft's number one concern is that of any publicly held company- making a profit.
as for binc... i'm not sure i'm really qualified to have my opinion mean anything, seeing as how i don't use binc on any live servers (yet) but if anybody cares i'm in favour of leaving it under the GPL.
-------------------------------------------------- | John M. Simpson - KG4ZOW - Programmer At Large | | http://www.jms1.net/ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | -------------------------------------------------- | Mac OS X proves that it's easier to make UNIX | | pretty than it is to make Windows secure. | --------------------------------------------------
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
