Just going to add my POV as a OSS developer. On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 14:29, Christopher Sawtell wrote: > On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 13:24, Nick Rout wrote: > > Just help me with my train of thought. > > > > Imagine a software project is written in php and is released under the > > GPL. > > > > Imagine someone modifies that project to run their own website, operates > > that website but never releases their changes. > > > > Are they obliged to release their changes? > > Not currently under GPL-2.x.
This has been called the "Server Hole". > > > I am thinking that as they > > only use their changes on their own website there is no "distribution" > > of their changes, and the GPL does not require it's release. > > > > Am I right? > > As of now, yes. GPL-3 is _*rumoured*_ to close that loophole. In some cases, it isn't too much of a problem. You can consider the server hole as commercially friendly, where it will get use and exposer. Ask they nicely for changes, or suggest working with them on future versions so that it will fit with them. I think the GPL-v3 could face poor acceptance if it closes the server hole. If it was placed as an option that could be waived by the developer then it might pass more. > as well as > several others, i.e. the translation of algorithms expressed in one > computer language to another to avoid the strictures of the GPL, etc., > etc.. Patents and DRM are the main two items that the v3 is going for (from what I've heard). Closing the server hole would be most contriversal. > http://gplv3.fsf.org/index05 Later Lee Begg Developer for Worldforge, PVMPOV, Thousand Parsec, Dart.
pgpfyCplOleaD.pgp
Description: PGP signature
