On Tue, Sep 11, 2001 at 06:29:05PM -0700, Mark K. Kim wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2001, Micah Cowan wrote:
>
> > No. In fact, the FSF is very strongly against licenses that require
> > you to release the source simply because of personal modifications. I
> > believe the Apple Public Source License is an example. If you read
> > the reasons the FSF terms this a "non-free" license, one of the
> > biggest reasons it remains so despite changes to appease the FSF is
> > that "any modified version 'deployed' in an organization must be
> > published." cf. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.html
>
> Okay, so you said a lot of other things below (which I very much
> appreciate), but since I'm using this code only for our company in-house
> stuff we don't need to release it, right?
Right, sorry. The stuff I said below applied only if you were
distributing binaries of it. The only time you ever have to
distribute the source under the GPL is if you're also distributing binaries.
(Legal Disclaimer: And of course, anything *I* say should be verified
with an attorney, as IANAL ;) )
Micah
