Author: Uri Blass
Date: 11:12:35 06/20/05
Go up one level in this thread
On June 20, 2005 at 12:57:00, Eric Oldre wrote: >On June 20, 2005 at 10:35:35, Madhavan wrote: > >>On June 20, 2005 at 10:32:33, Cesar Contreras wrote: >> >>>I'm not sure, in my understanding every derivated work from Fruit must be GPL. >>> >>>can it go commercial? >>> >>>if so can anybody make it commercial or just fabien? >> >>So,are you planning to somehow modify the fruit code and sell it commercially >>without revealing fruit's code? >> >>just another Toga,Moga clone. >> >>>in my undersanding (point me wrong), fruit not longer belongs to fabien because >>>it's GPL. >> >>No!it belongs to Fabien,I dont give a damn about GPL or whatever it is. >>Fabien did Fruit,it belongs to him,thats it. >> >>ok then > > >Although we'd all love to see Fabien be able to benefit from >his great work on Fruit. My understanding of the GPL differs >a bit from those are are saying he could choose to take it >closed source if he wants. > >Basically my understanding is that when you release something >under the GPL you are making an contract with the public. > >For certain benefits (discussed below) you are agreeing to >release the source of any new versions of the program that >you publicly distribute. I do not believe that the benefits that you report exist in the case of fruit. > >What you get in exchange for this, is possibly help from the >public. People examinining your source, testing your program, >reporting bugs, fixing bugs, giving suggestions. My guess is that people who do it do not do it for fabien but do it in order to have a better fruit. I do not believe that there is a single person who decided to do something of these tasks for fruit because of a promise to release every future version of fruit. Uri
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.