Its complicated, Rick. If RDFT is GPL'd, and changes were made to
RDFT, then those changes would have to be released under GPL.
However, if RDFT was not changed, but simply "used" in a larger
application (e.g. SCAMP), then it depends on how it was used. At one
time, static linking would supposedly send you down one path, while
dynamic linking would send you down another. Short of talking to the
FSF folks or getting to the point where a judge decides in court, the
IP lawyers would say there are few certainies.
As for timing, I believe that the requirement is independent of
release; if you modify GPL'd code, you must release your
modifications whether or not you ever release a product. Otherwise,
one could elude GPL by simply keeping one's products in permanent
beta.
Personally, if there's any open source code in stuff I work on, then
I make that stuff open source. At some point I'll be extending
PSKCORE to deal with assymetric sound cards, for example; that work
will all be open source.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In [email protected], kv9u <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> If a programmer is experimenting with a work that is derived in
part
> from a program that has been GPL'd, I wonder if it has to be
released?
>
> In other words, once you release an alpha or beta, do you have to
> provide source source to everyone else? Or does it have to be a
> finalized and released code?
>
> 73,
>
> Rick, KV9U
>
>
> Leigh L Klotz, Jr. wrote:
> > Now that NCI is no longer necessary, maybe we can get Bruce
Perens
> > interested in this topic and he can pursue the release of SCAMP
source
> > code through their obligations of GPL.
> > Leigh/WA5ZNU
> > On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 1:48 am, Rein Couperus wrote:
> >
> >>> The SCAMP busy detector has been around for several years.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Is this available for Linux? Source code? GPL?
> >>
> >> Rein EA/PA0R/P
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
