On Nov 11, 2012, at 6:17 PM, Yanni Chiu wrote: > On 11/11/12 11:31 AM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: >> >> So this can only work if you do not respect GPL. For example, I could >> imagine that >> somebody take qwak code and build a company around it but does not say >> anything >> and never ever publish code then they would not be forced to release the >> code they develop >> subsequently under GPL (because it has to be GPL) but they would be >> violating the license. > > IIUC, whether or not they'd be violating GPL depends on what you mean by > "build a company around it". > > It is entirely okay with GPL, for a company to use (modify & extend) GPL code > internally, and never publishes any changes. However, if that company wanted > to release a product, using GPL code, then they would be obligated to release > their code changes as well. And, that release of code must use GPL.
I was implying that indeed people do a product based on it. > What's not clear to me is how this translates into the "cloud"-era. If > someone provides qwaq as a cloud service, are they just using GPL code > internally? > >> So simply thinking that Qwak code does not exist is the best for Pharo. > > Yes, good idea. However, I believe it is allowed that someone may describe > how a piece of GPL'ed code works, so it can be re-implemented by others. I do not know that part of GPL. Stef
