Hi, All, Well, we just put the discussion of whether the patch should be under GPL away. We just assume it is under GPL.
So, now, at my current understanding, I can distribute the patch to another one, with/without commercial behavior. And I have the rights that I do not public the source code, the only thing I have to do is when I try to distribute the patched kernel I have to make the whole source code available to the receiver, and the patch is still under GPL. Right? And after I distribute the patched kernel, can the receiver public the patch? If yes, can I put a limit to public the patch? It's ok when we distribute the patched kernel with source code also available to which we want to distribute the patched kernel. However, make the patch public available is not our intention. We can and did contribute much code to open source community, but "much" doesn't mean "all", and should not *have to* be all. In the real world, obviously, not everyone wants to make all the stuff to public. So, there are some code in the real world will face the situation I described above. Dancefire -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Kastrup Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2006 12:38 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Do I have to release the patch for a GPL software under GPL? "Dancefire" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi, Alexander, > > I am sorry, I am not quite understand your words. Google for other posts by Alexander. He is a well-known troll in this group trying to spread confusion and doubt about the GPL. Just ignore any advice of his, it's bullshit, and intentionally misleading. Some hobby of his. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
