On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 12:48:53 -0800, Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 12:18 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: >> The GPL does not force developers to "contribute their changes back". >> That's exactly the *point*. > Explain please. > Lets assume you have GPL-ed project dpkg. Any change to foo.c must be > contributed back to the community. ... Only if you distribute a binary based on the changed foo.c. And only if someone asks you for the sources. If you keep the binary to yourself, you don't have to release anything. > Also GPL-ed dpkg could be easily distributed as a binary if it is not > part of the system. The way KDE and other GPL-ed software distributed > in projects like www.blastwave.org, cygwin, etc. > CDDL works similar way, except on per-file basis. And as Matthew has repeatedly pointed out, this will not help with getting dpkg dual-licensed, since several dpkg copyright holders probably do not want that. -- Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://www.uhoreg.ca/ PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net. Encrypted e-mail preferred. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
