On Sun, Jun 07, 2015 at 08:45:14PM -0400, Clem Cole wrote: > I fear you might be missunderstanding/confusing the "usage" rights and the > "ownership" rights.
Perhaps, yes. > On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 4:00 AM, Pontus Pihlgren <pon...@update.uu.se> wrote: > > > 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. > > > Sadly - that is not correct. If B modifes the code, then B is also > obligated to make it available - period. That's the virus and what make > its powerful as well as difficult. No, it is in fact correct: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic > I wonder if you are getting stuck on the "upon request" part. If B > modifies the code, the truth is anyone can ask B for the sources to the > "dervitive work." No, not anyone, just the program's users. See the above link. > BTW: forcing B to make her/his sources available without any charge is > exactly the behavior RMS intended with the license. Indeed, but not to anyone asking. > I'm not sure it protects the user in any way other than tries to guarrentee > that a user of an invention/work, can get the sources for it if they want > it and B still exists to ask. Which (if you believe in a completely > shared commons) is a fine thing. Yes, this is my favourite part of the GPL licenses. I have the drawings to my house for a good reason, why not the source for software I use. > You need to go back the Symbolics vs. Lisp Machines, Inc wars to truly > understand the whys and hows of the GPL virus. It's an interesting history, I'm familiar with it. Although I object to the term virus in this context :) /P _______________________________________________ Simh mailing list Simh@trailing-edge.com http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh