Gregory K. Ruiz-Ade wrote:
Also note that "only if you distribute" is itself, a condition. I know very
few people who write code to develop useful projects and _don't_ want to
share it.
Gregory
I know of lots that do just exactly that. In fact I used to do that.
There's even a special term for the process: "in-house". I've read of
studies suggesting that the vast majority of software is written for
exclusive in-house projects which are never released to the public.
The only conditions on use of GPL software is that anyone to whom you
distribute it gets the same rights you did when you acquired it. That's
it. If you don't like, or don't agree to abide by the terms, you don't
use the software. No one twists your arm. Don't like it, use something
else. If there isn't something else, write it yourself, or commission
someone else to write it.
As far as using abandoned code, the problem you mention pretty much
applies to most any license. The BSD license is the exception, not the
rule, in that it's only requirement is that proper attribution must be
maintained.
But how is abandoned GPL code any different from actively maintained GPL
code? The only way to mix it with your BSD code is to convince _all_ of
the GPL code's contributors to fork off a version for you under the BSD
license. Good luck there.
However going the other direction, BSD code can be converted to GPL,
because the BSD license imposes no conditions on its use.
--
Best Regards,
~DJA.
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
