2003-03-05T14:34:23 John Cowan: > The GPL and the OSL take what I consider to be a reasonable attitude: > you must supply changes in source form to people who have received > the changed version. If the changed version is published to all, the > changes must also be; if the changed version is distributed to a few, > ditto the changes; if the changed version is never distributed, the > changed version need not be either.
NB that there are some interesting points in this neighborhood. At least one software provider explicitly defines "distribute" to include distributing to different offices within a company; they then feel privileged to demand that a company that uses their Open Source product for an in-house project pay them for a commercial-redistribution license, rather than using the open source version, unless they're willing to completely open-source their in-house app. I raised the topic on this list, and got wide-spread agreement from people here that this is compliant with the Open Source Definition, which I must confess disappointed me. -Bennett
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
