-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Hello Felipe, Felipe Lessa wrote: > Hi, > > See section 6 of http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html, which says > "You may convey a covered work in object code form [...] provided > that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under > the terms of this License[...]". The GPL doesn't obligates you to > distribute your code to everyone who wants it, but it obligates you > to distribute it everyone who *uses* it (be it in compiled form). Felipe, this is not really relevant, because it will not get triggered. Imagine a hypothetical situation of a company X, that is using a hacked up version of Soya3D (or another GPL-licensed code) internally. You, as an employee, cannot just take this code and release it to the wild, based on the fact that the GPL of the original code should allow it. You are not the copyright holder of the modified code, typically - the company is. Whether or not the code is GPL-derived, whether or not the company has complied with the GPL itself and is legally clear is not relevant. You still cannot release somebody else's code without permission - how do you know that the company *intended* the code to be GPL-ed? You would open yourself to a swift termination and a lawsuit if you did this, especially, if the GPL-ed portion of code was added without the management knowing/approving. This is why one typically needs a written permission to release anything of this sort. E.g. at the university I worked before, the policy was that all code written while working there was university property and I had to seek a written permission to be allowed to release it - even if it was originally GPL-derived (I got the permission, BTW). As an employee, you would be a fool to go against this - if the company doesn't allow you to comply with the GPL obligations, it becomes their problem and you are off the hook as an individual. Whether GPL conditions really apply with regards to distribution of the application to own employees, I am not sure - that would probably depend on the definition of "distribution" and that is likely quite different in US, in France and in the rest of the world. Usually, you need to distribute to 3rd-parties/public for the distribution clause to be triggered, but I am not a lawyer and even if I was, my jurisdiction is very likely quite different from yours. Any how, it would be very dangerous to make any assumptions about being allowed to distribute some company code on this. > > They say 'To "convey" a work means any kind of propagation that > enables other parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction > with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, > is not conveying.' For me, this means that using a site doesn't > trigger your rights with the source, but using the binaries does. > Say, if I use an application that is linked with GPLed software, then > it must be GPLed too and I must have access to its source. This may not apply within a company, see above. The idea is that company is a legal entity as itself, it doesn't really matter what happens inside. However, again, I am not a lawyer ... > I do not think the license depends on the distribution. If you use > GPLed code, then your code must have the same freedoms the GPL gives > no matter what you do to your code -- be it a small program you used > once and threw away or the ERP of a Big Company (TM) or a free > software game made on the free time of a nice hacker. Actually, this is wrong. GPL (and copyright in general) *DOES* depend on distribution, not use. Copyright doesn't cover use at all (that's why internal use of hacked GPL code without releasing source is legal!), only "making copies" - i.e. distribution. GPL (and any other license, even Windows EULA) are triggered only by the act of distribution. That is why you need to "agree" with Windows EULA and do not need to do that with GPL. With the EULA you need to agree with the click-wrap to give away some freedoms you have by default and that the copyright law doesn't cover (e.g. reverse engineering). It is more a contract than a license, actually. GPL doesn't need this, because it doesn't try to control use of the product, only distribution and actually gives you more rights than the copyright law alone - e.g. the right to re-distribute. If you do not agree with GPL terms, you have no right to distribute the product, but the use is not restricted in any way - the copyright law doesn't cover use. Now what exactly is considered "distribution" is another story. Here is material from gnu.org on this (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic): > Q: Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted > to the public? > A: The GPL does not require you to release your modified > version. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, > without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including > companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use > it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization. > > But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, > the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to > the program's users, under the GPL. > > Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in > certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to > release it is up to you. Regards, Jan -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mandriva - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHXEAGn11XseNj94gRAk5uAKC3YLe/zLMdseTxYraJWiUwGDxgOACeLvCT uI25OyOUGvTQF222Ke81O+Y= =Dr5P -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Soya-user mailing list Soya-user@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/soya-user
