On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 12:45 AM, Stefan Küng <tortoisesvn_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> > Ok, forget the "derived" part and let me re-state my argument this way:
> > 1) You will distribute a package called "TortoiseSVN-1.x.x-32.msi"
> > 2) This package will be a binary distribution and should either
> > a) be accompanied by source code, or
> > b) NOT be under the GPL.
> >
> > It is quite possible that my understanding of English and/or GPL is flawed.
> > So you might prefer to ask FSF instead of wasting your time
> > on my silly arguments ;-)
> Just think of what the GPL tries to do: prevent companies from using the
> work of others to make money. It does not try to prevent those who write
> the code to make money.
> (If you have trouble understanding something, always go back to the
> basics...)
Well, I am sorry for going off-topic, but the above statement is,
to the best of my knowledge, not correct.
The GPL does not (and does not intend to) prevent anybody from making money
using others' work. In fact, any company can happily
distribute TortoiseSVN for a fee and build any products it wish
based on it.
The only requirement is to publish a complete source code
for the resulting product along with it's binary form.
So I am fairly confident in my basics understanding, please correct
me if I am wrong.
Let me paraphrase in yet another way: what would you say if
the company asking you to include toolbar just did that themselves
and started to distribute the result?
Would not it be a GPL violation? I think it would.
Now, why it will not be a violation of GPL if you will do it?
Because, as a copyright holder
(if other contributors agree to assign copyright to you, as I just did),
you have a right to NOT abide by GPL, but dual- (or multi-) license you code.
This is option 1 I suggested earlier.
--
Alexander S. Klenin
Insight Experts Ltd.
Received on 2008-03-11 16:10:58 CET