Emma Jane Hogbin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hopefully a (quick) question...if I make a product which is open > source I don't have to *distribute* the product, do I?
I don't think anything compels you to distribute it, no. But if you do distribute it you generally have to distribute it with source (depending on the license) [1], and you can't keep other people from distributing it. So A can give code to B, and doesn't have to give it to C, but can't stop B from giving it to C independently. > Background: a potential client may or may not understand the benefits of > open source work. If I make something for them which is licensed under > GFL and uses other products, which I have written and are under the same > license, is there any obligation on my part (or the client's part) to > distribute the software? IANAL, but my understanding of the GPL and other open-source licenses is that this is generally correct. For another example, the Artistic License lets you freely modify the source in whatever way you want so long as you don't redistribute it, but puts (DFSG-acceptable) restrictions on how distributed modifications can be made; see section 3(b). [1] I've run into a fair bit of GPL'd PalmOS software. While free software is well and good, the main way handheld software seems to get shared is by IR beaming -- which is binary-only, so I think the GPL effectively prevents me from sharing, say, OpenChess this way. The Artistic License does appear to allow sharing of unmodified upstream binaries, which would better accomodate this particular use. [2] Nothing particularly in favor of or against Artistic or GPL here, though, Artistic was just the first file in /usr/share/common-licenses... :-) -- David Maze [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://people.debian.org/~dmaze/ "Theoretical politics is interesting. Politicking should be illegal." -- Abra Mitchell -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
