Isaac writes:
> There was a lot of rhetoric about the FSF wanting to change this for GPLv3.
> I don't know if that happened...
There is no hint of it in the draft.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
Gnu-misc-discuss
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 20:27:38 -0600, John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rex writes:
>> I've seen a lot of people say that if you modify GPL code and run it on a
>> server (e.g. I modify MySQL and then use it as a database for my shopping
>> website), you don't have to GPL your modifications.
>
John Hasler wrote:
[...]
> No. You are only required to give copies of the source to those you give
> copies of the binaries to.
17 USC 109 disagrees. The owner of a lawfully made copy is ENTITLED,
WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNER, to sell or otherwise
dispose of the possession o
For the sake of nailing stupid dak once again...
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > John Hasler wrote:
> > [...]
> >> No. You are only required to give copies of the source to those you give
> >> copies of the binaries to.
> >
> > 17 USC 109 disagrees.
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> John Hasler wrote:
> [...]
>> No. You are only required to give copies of the source to those you give
>> copies of the binaries to.
>
> 17 USC 109 disagrees. The owner of a lawfully made copy is ENTITLED,
> WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF THE COPYRIGH
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> > [...]
> >> "lawfully made", "dispose of", "possession". It is clear that this
> >> applies to physical copies acquired in an exchange of interest with
> >> the copyright holder, not to things
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> "lawfully made", "dispose of", "possession". It is clear that this
> applies to physical copies acquired in an exchange of interest with
> the copyright holder, not to things you duplicated yourself. For
> those copies, your rights are restricted by the license. The
Rex writes:
> Do you mean this?
Who is "you"? Are you replying to someone in particular? Hint: this is
Usenet, not a "forum".
> In other words, it wouldn't be OK to modify Emacs and allow people full
> remote use of it on my server without giving out the source, but it would
> be OK to modify M
I've seen a lot of people say that if you modify GPL code and run
it on a server (e.g. I modify MySQL and then use it as a database
for my shopping website), you don't have to GPL your
modifications. Can anyone point me to an official statement on this
by the FSF or another authority
Rex writes:
> I've seen a lot of people say that if you modify GPL code and run it on a
> server (e.g. I modify MySQL and then use it as a database for my shopping
> website), you don't have to GPL your modifications.
It's bloody well obvious. Read the license.
> Can anyone point me to an offici
Hi,
I've seen a lot of people say that if you modify GPL code and run it on
a server (e.g. I modify MySQL and then use it as a database for my
shopping website), you don't have to GPL your modifications. Can anyone
point me to an official statement on this by the FSF or another
authority?
Thanks!
Anyone with the executable in their hands should have the right to the
source code.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Do you mean this?
"If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering
access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access
to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of
the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy
the
13 matches
Mail list logo
