On Sat, Jun 06, 2015 at 08:08:29PM -0400, Clem Cole wrote: > Without getting into the good/bad politics of the different > license its pretty simple.
I'd also like to avoid a good/bad discussion. I too use both. > The GPL is a "virus" which says that if you use the > technology, a ny "derivitive work" is not yours exclusively, > you must be willing to give the sources to not only the > original but your work anyone that asks for it. This means > that if you use the technology you have to provide a way for > people to get your source code. I believe there is a missconception here, perhaps on my part. But the license is a issued by one party to one other. Lets call the issuer A and the other B. If A gives B a software product under GPL then A must provide source code to B upon request. B has no obligations to anyone, not even if B modifies the code. A third party, lets call them C, has no rights to the product or source, it's just when B gives the product to C that the restrictions apply. And even then B has no obligations to A. Any modifications made by B is only available to C upon request. GPL is a license to "protect" the user. /P _______________________________________________ Simh mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh
