[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jan Wieck) writes:
> Trond Eivind=?iso-8859-1?q?_Glomsr=F8d?= wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jan Wieck) writes:
> >
> > > Trond Eivind Glomsrød wrote:
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jan Wieck) writes:
> > > >
> > > > > Trond Eivind Glomsrød wrote:
> > > > > > Mike Mascari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is not something new. SunOS, AIX, HPUX, etc. all have (at
> > > > > > > one time or another) considerable BSD roots. And yet FreeBSD
> > > > > > > still exists... All GPL does is 'poison' the pot by prohibiting
> > > > > > > commercial spawns which may leverage the code.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > GPL doesn't prohibit commercial spawns - it just requires you to send
> > > > > > the source along.
> > > > >
> > > > > So if someone offers $$$ for implementation of Postgres
> > > > > feature XYZ I don't have to make that code open source?
> > > >
> > > > You don't have to tell the world they can have it for free - you can
> > > > sell it, and develop it by demand.
> > > >
> > > > > Only need to ship the code to the one paying
> > > >
> > > > Yes.
> > >
> > > Now I don't want to ship the source code. My customer would
> > > be happy with a patched 8.2.3 binary as long as I'm
> > > responsible to patch future versions until I release the
> > > sources. Is that OK?
> >
> > You don't have to give the customer the source, as long as you
> > gurantee that he gets it (for cost of distribution) if he wants it.
>
> Wordy, but how can I prevent him to ask for?
By doing everything he wants (and perfect) so he doesn't have a need
for it?
Basically, GPL is intended to protect the end user and guaranteeing
him the source if he wants it - and that he can do what he wants to
with it, as long as he doesn't prevent others from doing so.
--
Trond Eivind Glomsrød
Red Hat, Inc.
