GPL (was Re: Free software companies and stock options)

["dodobh@xxxxxxxxxxx" <dodobh@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sudhakar Chandra spewed into the ether:

>True.  But look at it this way, if Bank B added a much needed >feature tothe code it got from Bank A, it (Bank B) has to share the >modifications with Bank A.

<Re reads the GPL again>
AFAI understand, the GPL does not mean that you have to distribute the source code. You only have to distribute source if you distribute binaries. So all that the bank has to do is retain copyright for the code (this can be a part of the contract with the developer. As long as bank A chooses not to distibute the code, the are *not* required to distribute source. If they do so, bank B is not required to return any changes made, unless they also choose to distribute binaries.

This means that I can make any changes to gcc, but I am not required to distribute those changes, as long as I am the only one using that particular version of gcc. If I distribute binaries of my version, then I am required to make the source available, not otherwise.

And even RMS doesn't claim that all kinds of software are suitable for GPLing. In Kiran's example, I don't think that the GPL would be required for an inhouse solution, or even a contract based one. If however, the bank is buying a package from somewhere else, it would be better for it to buy a package under a free license.

Devdas Bhagat



------------------------------------------------------------
Visit Nettaxi's Town Hall - start & sign petitions, write letters, pay tickets!
http://www.e-thepeople.com/affiliates/nettaxi/ (Produced by e-ThePeople)