Perry Hargrave <[email protected]> writes:
> On Jan 20, 2012 1:44 PM, "Julien Danjou" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 20 2012, Perry Hargrave wrote:
>>
>> > But if they made custom modules that only use awful they don't have to
>> > make that available, right?
>>
>> Since awful is GPL, I *think* they would have to.
>>
>
> Sony isn't releasing there (ps3) opengl wrapping code are they?
> They only have to offer their modifications to the actual opengl libraries.
> If you add a custom an unique piece of software, that uses a gpl product,
> you are not required to gpl your custom code.
The problem is to know the limit between using and building a work based
on the software.
GPL state that:
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you
distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work
based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the
terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend
to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of
who wrote it.
And awesome + said library + rc.lua could be seen as a work based on
awesome, and as such should be under GPL (as I understand it, IANAL)
> If you make modifications to aan existing gpl project, then before
> releasing your version you are required to submit the changes to the
> upstream developers.
No. The GPL mandate that you distribute the modified source to those to
whom you distribute the modified version of the program, not to its
original author.
[...]
--
Rémi Vanicat
--
To unsubscribe, send mail to [email protected].
