"Dancefire" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > We are obviously not going to rip any opensource software, even the > GPL software we going to patch.
You are obviously planning to do just that. > What we expect is only make our *tiny* patch under our > control. There is no anyone else code in the tiny patch. Your "tiny patch" serves no purpose without the GPLed software, so you effectively add the GPLed software into a proprietary offering against the explicit wishes and the license you have been granted. I repeat: if you don't want to heed the conditions of the GPLed software, contact the original author and offer to pay him for a license to use his software under different terms and conditions. > We do not want to restrict the redistribute of the original GPL > software, it's not our business. What we want to do is to put the > restriction of redistribution on the tiny patch we created. You plan to restrict the redistribution of a variant of the original GPL software. The license does not permit that. Negotiate a different license. You can't just ignore the license and make up your own terms. > Yes, if without the original GPL software, the patch will not going > to work directly. However, it doesn't mean the patch will make no > sense without original software. We also can port the patch to other > software, after port, the patch can work without the original one. Then do that. You are free to port the patch to whatever software you like and publish it under terms compatible with the license under which you received that software. > What I trying to say is there ARE some intelligent properties in the > patch which we want to keep under our control, but we never want to > put any restriction on any one else. So can we protect our own tiny > patch not to be public? No. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
