On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 07:34:19 -0500, Curtis wrote in message <ef5fc9920903170534s75b2f92bo4352f46a742e0...@mail.gmail.com>:
> 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 FlightGear source can be obtained. If > > they have modified source code to FlightGear, then they should make > > the source code available (if requested) to anyone who asks. That > > doesn’t mean anyone would want it. I also would not have a problem > > with source code to a demo NOT being released if the intent was to > > keep (at this time) potentially dysfunctional code from escaping > > into the wild, as long as the eventual production code was made > > available, if requested, and if potential customers were made aware > > of that right to the source code. > > > > > > > > You’ve got to ask, really, is FlightGear made to be used or not? Is > > a usage good for the long term, or not? How persnickety do you > > really want to get? As we’ve discussed before, money is not the > > issue, but whether the customer is aware of the fact that the > > source code is available (and perhaps that the program can be > > downloaded freely from the FlightGear web site). > > > > > > > > Is FlightGear GPL or LGPL? > > > > FlightGear is GPL. FlightGear is of course made to be used. In the > hypothetical situation I am describing, I have not had any > hypothetical contact with the hypothetically alleged GPL infringer so > I have very little information to go on (hypothetically.) > > The consensus is that only distributing a demo or free copy of a > modified binary does not exempt someone from honoring the terms of > the GPL. That makes perfect sense and it's good to cut away that > potential distraction. > > It is also good to be reminded that distributing a modified binary .."modified" only adds a requirement to offer their own source, along with ours, and compliance can be done with a pointer to git|svn|cvs.fgo and their own patch(es) from their own site and a threat of FG source on human readable clay tablets. > isn't necessarily a violation in and of itself. The violation would > technically happen when someone who received the modified binary > asked for the modified source code and was refused. ..yup, assuming the source offer "was made." If it isn't made, that failure becomes the violation. > 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? ..this is _one_ reason I prefer the GPLv3, avoids that litigation bait trap in GPLv2, it is _too_ open to interpretion_s_. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Apps built with the Adobe(R) Flex(R) framework and Flex Builder(TM) are powering Web 2.0 with engaging, cross-platform capabilities. Quickly and easily build your RIAs with Flex Builder, the Eclipse(TM)based development software that enables intelligent coding and step-through debugging. Download the free 60 day trial. http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-adobe-com _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
