L/GPL'ed license. you have to contribute back to if you fix something or modify code.
Sorry Chiara but it's false :-) From the GPL FAQ:
The GPL does not require you to release your modified version. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.
But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL.
Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you.
The GPL requires that if someone gets legally a binary of a GPL product, he/she can get the source code of the application for a fee covering the expenses of reproduction, from the people/organization who made the build. With the source code, he/she can do what he/she wants in the limit of the GPL (you can't put further restrictions) and the copyright laws.
The viral aspect is a different part. That's why I think they should do a LGPL FAQ.
3 réactions
1 De chiara - 01/07/2003, 15:50
wow. thanks Damien.. some reason, this sounded crystal clear.. I got it, i got it, by jove, i got..
but, i can see why Apache folks would stay away from this.. hmm, the software company who mixes opensource L/GPL'ed code with their stuff is liable to release it later on, that's why those apache guys hate this license. well, at least the consultants who use opensource ones when they work with their client and the client doesn't ever want it to be released for competitive reasons..i know some cases of this happening.
2 De Damien B - 01/07/2003, 19:07
That's where LGPL could be useful if the conditions of application weren't so obscure. In my case, I wouldn't not hesitate too long to propose GPL code to our customer, because I almost only work for in-house systems, and even if the code is great, the code is so specific that the company, even if if was interested in software distribution, which is never the case, would never bother to sell a binary form of the code. Most of the time, the code is the implementation of their business process, so neither a binary nor the source should go out, thus GPL is fine :-)
3 De Damien B - 01/07/2003, 19:08
Such a long sentence, it's awful...