On Nov 11, 2012, at 3:21 PM, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.duca...@inria.fr> wrote:
>
> On Nov 11, 2012, at 6:17 PM, Yanni Chiu wrote:
>
>> On 11/11/12 11:31 AM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>>>
>>> So this can only work if you do not respect GPL. For example, I could
>>> imagine that
>>> somebody take qwak code and build a company around it but does not say
>>> anything
>>> and never ever publish code then they would not be forced to release the
>>> code they develop
>>> subsequently under GPL (because it has to be GPL) but they would be
>>> violating the license.
>>
>> IIUC, whether or not they'd be violating GPL depends on what you mean by
>> "build a company around it".
>>
>> It is entirely okay with GPL, for a company to use (modify & extend) GPL
>> code internally, and never publishes any changes. However, if that company
>> wanted to release a product, using GPL code, then they would be obligated to
>> release their code changes as well. And, that release of code must use GPL.
>
> I was implying that indeed people do a product based on it.
>
The viral aspect of the GPL are bound to distribution. A web service thus can
use modified GPL sofware and never has to provide
the sources. Only ff you distribute the binary (or source), you have to provide
the sources under the terms of the GPL.
When mixing licenses, the parts under GPL have to stay GPL and the others (e.g.
MIT) stay MIT. But the GPL's virality leaks into the MIT parts in some way:
It forces all the source to be made available when you distribute a modified
version, the GPLed parts and even those under MIT.
>> What's not clear to me is how this translates into the "cloud"-era. If
>> someone provides qwaq as a cloud service, are they just using GPL code
>> internally?
>>
>>> So simply thinking that Qwak code does not exist is the best for Pharo.
>>
>> Yes, good idea. However, I believe it is allowed that someone may describe
>> how a piece of GPL'ed code works, so it can be re-implemented by others.
>
> I do not know that part of GPL.
>
The GPL as a license is a about copyright. Copyright is for expressions of text
(or other media), not for the ideas behind.
Of course, one of the reasons why one picks a simple license is to not have
exactly these discussions.
They are useless, destroy energy and bring nothing.
Marcus
--
Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de
