Continued from previous post... Recently, there was some controversy whether (small-sized) creators/distributors of say Knoppix or SimplyMepis should be distributing the source code under the GPL, in addition to their own modifications, and this is a big grey area. AFAIK, there is a compromise resolution that such authors may need to store complete source code versions for each of their public releases on a web server accessible to all. This problem is now being addressed under the GPLv3 for disambiguation, but till recently, they might have been in default.
In the end, I believe that if you are using GPL code in your program, or are planning to develop a program for somebody (from scratch) under GPL, you *should* provide the source code to ensure their four freedoms. If the said recipient further modifies and redistributes the program, if the GPL is followed, his recipients (which could also be you) will have a right to receive the source code of the modifications as well as the original source code (or a link to it if you maintain it). Storage is cheap, so you can maintain say a version-by-version tree under SVN and provide it at reasonable cost to your program's (or it's derivative work's) users. Contrary to Linus Torvalds' rationale in choosing GPLv2 (and no further) as the kernel's license, rms maintains that it favours the users' freedom, not necessarily the developer's rights. And this world would only gain if we return more to it than we take away. Nishit Dave -- ______________________________________________________________________ Pune GNU/Linux Users Group Mailing List: ([email protected]) List Information: http://plug.org.in/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/plug-mail Send 'help' to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for mailing instructions.
