On 14-May-00, 03:05 (CDT), Paul Serice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Absolutely. The GPL rule is that *if* you want to distribute your > > modifications, you must make the source available. If you only modify > > for personal use, you are under no obligation to distribute. > > After the fact, I'm reading the GPL again and don't find support for > your position. If yours is the common understanding, then o.k.
I'm pretty sure it is the common understanding, because I've read that interpetation in several places; It's not original with me. I think the issue is with the flexibility/imprecision of English. You also need to understand that the GPL provides rights in addition to those provided by normal copyright law, which does not limit what I can do with a copy of a work legally obtained so long as I do not attempt to distribute my changes. > Furthermore, my interpretation seems to further the general spirit of > the GPL more than the interpretation that you put forward. The "general spirit of the GPL" is that you may not further restrict the rights of the people who obtain software from you that you obtained from someone else. If you don't distribute, then no rights are restricted. The GPL is not about forcing you to do anything. I could modify GCC to have every program print "Microsoft Sucks!" when it starts; that might be entertaining for me, but hardly in the interest of free software to require me to distribute that modified version of GCC. If I'm required to distribute mods, that means I can't experiment with code, because I don't have time to post every version that I come up with. Steve
