To clarify, this applies to GPLv2. I don't know a lot about GPLv3 /P
On Sun, Jun 07, 2015 at 10:00:47AM +0200, Pontus Pihlgren wrote: > On Sat, Jun 06, 2015 at 08:08:29PM -0400, Clem Cole wrote: > > > Without getting into the good/bad politics of the different > > license its pretty simple. > > I'd also like to avoid a good/bad discussion. I too use both. > > > The GPL is a "virus" which says that if you use the > > technology, a ny "derivitive work" is not yours exclusively, > > you must be willing to give the sources to not only the > > original but your work anyone that asks for it. This means > > that if you use the technology you have to provide a way for > > people to get your source code. > > I believe there is a missconception here, perhaps on my part. > But the license is a issued by one party to one other. > > Lets call the issuer A and the other B. > > If A gives B a software product under GPL then A must provide > source code to B upon request. B has no obligations to anyone, > not even if B modifies the code. > > A third party, lets call them C, has no rights to the product or > source, it's just when B gives the product to C that the > restrictions apply. And even then B has no obligations to A. Any > modifications made by B is only available to C upon request. > > GPL is a license to "protect" the user. > > /P > _______________________________________________ > Simh mailing list > Simh@trailing-edge.com > http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh _______________________________________________ Simh mailing list Simh@trailing-edge.com http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh