El vie, 18-09-2015 a las 20:15 +0200, Nikola M escribió:
> On 09/18/15 07:10 PM, Gez wrote:
> > I wonder if saying that the only license pertains to the source
> > code.
> > I'd say that the binaries are also covered by the license, since
> > you
> > are obligued to make the source code available when you distribute
> > the
> > binaries.
> Source code is covered and source changes, if binaries are
> But binaries itself can have whatever licence one wants, if source
> source changes are available.
> That is exactly what this thread is about - there is the difference.
No, you're wrong.
You're misinterpreting one the GPL terms that says that you're not
obligued to publish your changes if you're not going to redistribute
the modified program.
That means: If you change the code, you may use the software without
publishing the modifications *IF* you're going to keep the program for
yourself and nobody else.
But if you're going to give the modified program to someone else, you
have to give them the modified sources as well.
It has NOTHING to do with the license. The license for GPL licensed
work is and will be always GPL unless you're the only person who wrote
the original code and therefor you keep the right of re-licensing it to
whatever license you want.
But you can't relicense somebody else's code which is under the GPL.
gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: firstname.lastname@example.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list