On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 06:28:26 -0700 (PDT), Gene wrote in message
:
> On Tue, 17 Mar 2009, Tim Moore wrote:
>
> >
> > You don't have to provide sources with the binaries to comply with
> > the GPL, you just have to make them available if the a recipient of
> > the binary asks for them. In this cas
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009, Tim Moore wrote:
>
> You don't have to provide sources with the binaries to comply with the GPL,
> you just have to make them available if the a recipient of the binary asks
> for them. In this case company "A" better have a plan in place for when an
> eventual paying customer
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 14:17:05 +1300, James wrote in message
<49c04b91.1090...@gogo.co.nz>:
> Curtis Olson wrote:
> >
> > Here's a question: Does a 3rd party have the right to ask for the
> > modified source code, even if none of the entities receiving the
> > modified program don't care to ask
Curtis Olson wrote:
>
> Here's a question: Does a 3rd party have the right to ask for the
> modified source code, even if none of the entities receiving the
> modified program don't care to ask for the source code?
Anybody who gets the binary is under the GPL entitled to the source -
"gets the
* Jon S. Berndt -- Tuesday 17 March 2009:
> Everyone must have access to the source code.
Only those who got the binary, directly or indirectly. From the FAQ
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#RedistributedBinariesGetSource:
| My friend got a GPL-covered binary with an offer to supply sourc
On Tuesday 17 March 2009 14:11:38 Ron Jensen wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 13:43 +0100, Stefan Seifert wrote:
> > On Tuesday 17 March 2009 13:34:19 Curtis Olson wrote:
> > > Here's a question: Does a 3rd party have the
> > > right to ask for the modified source code, even if none of the entities
> On Tuesday 17 March 2009 13:34:19 Curtis Olson wrote:
> > Here's a question: Does a 3rd party have the
> > right to ask for the modified source code, even if none of the
> entities
> > receiving the modified program don't care to ask for the source code?
>
> In short: no. The GPL doesn't requir
On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 13:43 +0100, Stefan Seifert wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 March 2009 13:34:19 Curtis Olson wrote:
> > Here's a question: Does a 3rd party have the
> > right to ask for the modified source code, even if none of the entities
> > receiving the modified program don't care to ask for the
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 07:34:19 -0500, Curtis wrote in message
:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 5:23 AM, Jon S. Berndt wrote:
>
> > There are some things we need to know that aren’t described below.
> > Was the FlightGear source modified? If not, then they would be
> > distributing an existing FlightGe
On Tuesday 17 March 2009 13:34:19 Curtis Olson wrote:
> Here's a question: Does a 3rd party have the
> right to ask for the modified source code, even if none of the entities
> receiving the modified program don't care to ask for the source code?
In short: no. The GPL doesn't require any rights f
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 05:23:09 -0500, Jon wrote in message
<00a201c9a6ea$60534dc0$20f9e9...@net>:
> There are some things we need to know that aren't described below.
> Was the FlightGear source modified? If not, then they would be
> distributing an existing FlightGear that anyone can download. All
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 5:23 AM, Jon S. Berndt wrote:
> There are some things we need to know that aren’t described below. Was
> the FlightGear source modified? If not, then they would be distributing an
> existing FlightGear that anyone can download. All they need do is mention
> where FlightGea
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 09:09:55 +0100 (CET), Frederic wrote in message
<26870652.2296231237277395051.javamail.r...@spooler4-g27.priv.proxad.net>:
> - "Ron Jensen" a écrit :
> If I can wear my Devil's advocate hat : What if the receiver of the
> modified software doesn't require the sources ?
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 13:08:02 +1100, George wrote in message
<5b12e0960903161908h699b16a5n40dca9d26ef94...@mail.gmail.com>:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Curtis Olson
> wrote:
> > Here's a hypothetical question.
> >
> > Let's say some company "A" builds an internal product prototype that
>
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 20:30:55 -0500, Curtis wrote in message
:
> Here's a hypothetical question.
>
> Let's say some company "A" builds an internal product prototype that
> incorporates FlightGear as part of a larger aggregate system. Let's
> say they even make a few small changes to FlightGear.
From: Curtis Olson [mailto:curtol...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 8:31 PM
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: [Flightgear-devel] hypothetical gpl question
Here's a hypothetical question.
Let's say some company "A" builds an internal product protot
Curtis Olson wrote:
> Here's a hypothetical question.
>
> Let's say some company "A" builds an internal product prototype that
> incorporates FlightGear as part of a larger aggregate system. Let's say
> they even make a few small changes to FlightGear. Now they give away a
> demo system to a co
James Sleeman ha scritto:
> Curtis Olson wrote:
>
>> Has the GPL been violated?
>>
> Probably, [...]
>
>
I absolutely agree with James: money, or demo releases are not kept in
consideration when considering GPL Violation such Curtis scenario:
If you legally obtain the binary you have th
Ron Jensen wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-03-16 at 20:30 -0500, Curtis Olson wrote:
> > Here's a hypothetical question.
> >
> > Let's say some company "A" builds an internal product prototype that
> > incorporates FlightGear as part of a larger aggregate system.
>
> Murky waters here. And a slippery sl
- "Ron Jensen" a écrit :
> On Mon, 2009-03-16 at 20:30 -0500, Curtis Olson wrote:
> > Here's a hypothetical question.
> >
> > Let's say some company "A" builds an internal product prototype
> that
> > incorporates FlightGear as part of a larger aggregate system.
>
> Murky waters here. And
On Mon, 2009-03-16 at 20:30 -0500, Curtis Olson wrote:
> Here's a hypothetical question.
>
> Let's say some company "A" builds an internal product prototype that
> incorporates FlightGear as part of a larger aggregate system.
Murky waters here. And a slippery slope to be on.
> Let's say they ev
Curtis Olson wrote:
> Now they give away a demo system to a couple different potential
> customers and say, "Hey what do you think." They haven't rolled out
> an actual product, they haven't had any actual sales. No customer has
> paid any money for the copy of the system.
>
> Has the GPL been
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Curtis Olson wrote:
> Here's a hypothetical question.
>
> Let's say some company "A" builds an internal product prototype that
> incorporates FlightGear as part of a larger aggregate system. Let's say
> they even make a few small changes to FlightGear. Now they
Here's a hypothetical question.
Let's say some company "A" builds an internal product prototype that
incorporates FlightGear as part of a larger aggregate system. Let's say
they even make a few small changes to FlightGear. Now they give away a demo
system to a couple different potential customer
24 matches
Mail list logo
