On Tue, 17 Mar 2009, Tim Moore wrote:
You don't have to provide sources with the binaries to comply with the GPL,
you just have to make them available if the a recipient of the binary asks
for them. In this case company A better have a plan in place for when an
eventual paying customer asks
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 06:28:26 -0700 (PDT), Gene wrote in message
alpine.lfd.1.10.0903170627320.4...@grumble.deltasoft.com:
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009, Tim Moore wrote:
You don't have to provide sources with the binaries to comply with
the GPL, you just have to make them available if the a
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 14:17:05 +1300, James wrote in message
49c04b91.1090...@gogo.co.nz:
Curtis Olson wrote:
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
- Ron Jensen a écrit :
On Mon, 2009-03-16 at 20:30 -0500, Curtis Olson wrote:
Here's a hypothetical question.
Let's say some company A builds an internal product prototype
that
incorporates FlightGear as part of a larger aggregate system.
Murky waters here. And a slippery
Ron Jensen wrote:
On Mon, 2009-03-16 at 20:30 -0500, Curtis Olson wrote:
Here's a hypothetical question.
Let's say some company A builds an internal product prototype that
incorporates FlightGear as part of a larger aggregate system.
Murky waters here. And a slippery slope to be
James Sleeman ha scritto:
Curtis Olson wrote:
Has the GPL been violated?
Probably, [...]
I absolutely agree with James: money, or demo releases are not kept in
consideration when considering GPL Violation such Curtis scenario:
If you legally obtain the binary you have the right
Curtis Olson wrote:
Here's a hypothetical question.
Let's say some company A builds an internal product prototype that
incorporates FlightGear as part of a larger aggregate system. Let's say
they even make a few small changes to FlightGear. Now they give away a
demo system to a couple
Olson [mailto:curtol...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 8:31 PM
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: [Flightgear-devel] hypothetical gpl question
Here's a hypothetical question.
Let's say some company A builds an internal product prototype that
incorporates FlightGear as part
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 20:30:55 -0500, Curtis wrote in message
ef5fc9920903161830o1416048dva02c4d7090ec8...@mail.gmail.com:
Here's a hypothetical question.
Let's say some company A builds an internal product prototype that
incorporates FlightGear as part of a larger aggregate system. Let's
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 13:08:02 +1100, George wrote in message
5b12e0960903161908h699b16a5n40dca9d26ef94...@mail.gmail.com:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Curtis Olson curtol...@gmail.com
wrote:
Here's a hypothetical question.
Let's say some company A builds an internal product prototype
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 09:09:55 +0100 (CET), Frederic wrote in message
26870652.2296231237277395051.javamail.r...@spooler4-g27.priv.proxad.net:
- Ron Jensen a écrit :
If I can wear my Devil's advocate hat : What if the receiver of the
modified software doesn't require the sources ?
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
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 05:23:09 -0500, Jon wrote in message
00a201c9a6ea$60534dc0$20f9e9...@net:
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
On Tuesday 17 March 2009 13:34:19 Curtis Olson wrote:
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?
In short: no. The GPL doesn't require any rights for
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,
On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 13:43 +0100, Stefan Seifert wrote:
On Tuesday 17 March 2009 13:34:19 Curtis Olson wrote:
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
On Tuesday 17 March 2009 13:34:19 Curtis Olson wrote:
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?
In short: no. The GPL doesn't require any
On Tuesday 17 March 2009 14:11:38 Ron Jensen wrote:
On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 13:43 +0100, Stefan Seifert wrote:
On Tuesday 17 March 2009 13:34:19 Curtis Olson wrote:
Here's a question: Does a 3rd party have the
right to ask for the modified source code, even if none of the entities
* Jon S. Berndt -- Tuesday 17 March 2009:
Everyone must have access to the source code.
Only those who got the binary, directly or indirectly. From the FAQ
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#RedistributedBinariesGetSource:
| My friend got a GPL-covered binary with an offer to supply
Curtis Olson wrote:
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?
Anybody who gets the binary is under the GPL entitled to the source -
gets the
Here's a hypothetical question.
Let's say some company A builds an internal product prototype that
incorporates FlightGear as part of a larger aggregate system. Let's say
they even make a few small changes to FlightGear. Now they give away a demo
system to a couple different potential customers
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Curtis Olson curtol...@gmail.com wrote:
Here's a hypothetical question.
Let's say some company A builds an internal product prototype that
incorporates FlightGear as part of a larger aggregate system. Let's say
they even make a few small changes to
Curtis Olson wrote:
Now they give away a demo system to a couple different potential
customers and say, Hey what do you think. They haven't rolled out
an actual product, they haven't had any actual sales. No customer has
paid any money for the copy of the system.
Has the GPL been
On Mon, 2009-03-16 at 20:30 -0500, Curtis Olson wrote:
Here's a hypothetical question.
Let's say some company A builds an internal product prototype that
incorporates FlightGear as part of a larger aggregate system.
Murky waters here. And a slippery slope to be on.
Let's say they even
24 matches
Mail list logo
