On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, Tod Hansmann wrote: > You can't release part of a project under GPL, and if you do release it > under GPL, you give up the right to keep some of your code to yourself. > At least, I believe that's what he's saying.
There is nothing in the GPL that says you must distribute any code you write that is derivative of GPL'd code, if you don't distribute it. If you distribute code derivative of GPL'd code, then it must be licensed under the GPL. But you don't have to distribute it. For example, a company can make internal modifications to Linux and is under no obligation to distribute them or tell anyone anywhere about it. I believe internal copying within a company is not considered distribution under copyright law due to the idea of corporate personhood. However, if they do distribute the code to others, whether in exchange for money or not, it must be licensed under the GPL to comply with the GPL license of the code they're building upon. Otherwise, they have no license to use that copyrighted original code. One option that occasionally is used: You can get permission from the original copyright holder to use their code under another license than the GPL, maybe for free because they like you, or in exchange for money or other valuables. This is all just a reflection of the fact that under current copyright law, all creative works are presumed copyrighted by their creator by default, and the only thing that makes it legal for another party to copy the copyrighted work (except for fair use etc.) is permission, whether through a stock license like the GPL, or personal permission. Jon -- Jon Jensen End Point Corporation http://www.endpoint.com/ /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
