On 11/08 10:48:21, Ben Finney wrote: > Mike Dewhirst <[email protected]> writes: > > 3. However, if the user modified source is kept in-house and not > > further distributed the changed source may be kept private or > > offered back to the project as a patch at the whim of that user. > > Fine. It's not at all clear copyright even applies to modifications > if they're not redistributed to others; [ snip ]
It's worth noting that (as Ben implies) the “distribution” concept is fairly important. You could quite happily license your software as GPL and someone else would still be able to modify it and even sell access to its enhanced(?) functionality over a web service, *without* needing to make their changes available at all. It's only if they wanted to distribute that software outside their organisation that the GPL requirements start to apply. For web software, this can be a bit of a loophole. :-) The Affero GPL attempts to close this loophole. I don't *think* you'd want to use it, but you might find it worth a look to make sure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License Pete. -- Real programmers don't draw flowcharts. Flowcharts are, after all, the illiterate's form of documentation. Cavemen drew flowcharts; look how much good it did them. _______________________________________________ melbourne-pug mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/melbourne-pug
