David Sommerseth wrote: > You can argue that it's a company specific change and that the software > is not distributed - but the employees in that company do get this > software somehow - most often as verbatim copy, and these employees can > then internally request the source code according to the GPL license.
I believe that's not so. The company with all employees is seen as one legal entity and internally can be more restrictive. It is when the company distributes binaries to another legal entity that the GPL kicks in. That said, I like GPLv2 too. Eric F Crist wrote: > Restricting bounty development to the small handful of developers > who've already done work on OpenVPN is a bad idea. It doesn't > entice new, talented, developers to participate. This is a really tough issue. Having a new developer join the team to create some significant amount of work as the very first interaction will create a lot of problems when that person isn't already familiar with the exact modus operandi of the project. Worst case it will simply lead to code that bitrots. Imagine you not being able to review and give immediate feedback on a wave of patches that are coming in, the author hears nothing and continues working, and in the end there's a huge pile of commits that just don't make sense, even though the final product works kinda ok.. Nightmare. //Peter
