Author: Roger D Davis
Date: 16:10:34 08/17/05
Go up one level in this thread
On August 17, 2005 at 18:18:40, Cesar Contreras wrote: > >http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html > > >"Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the >public? >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." > >-------------------------------------------------------- >What can be a little confusing it's: > >"release the modified version to the public in some way" > >I think "giving to testers" doesn't mean "releasing to the public", since >testers are part of the "development team", with the task to "test" (esential >part of any software development work). > >-------------------------------------------------------- > >IT SEAMS THERE CAN'T BE MADE ADDITIONAL REQUERIMENTS: > >ALSO FROM FAQ; > >"Why is the original BSD license incompatible with the GPL? >Because it imposes a specific requirement that is not in the GPL; namely, the >requirement on advertisements of the program. The GPL states: > > *** You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise > of the rights granted herein. **** > >The advertising clause provides just such a further restriction, and thus is >GPL-incompatible. >The revised BSD license does not have the advertising clause, which eliminates >the problem." > > >So asking "not to post" test results seems to be out of context. The problem is...an author could make modifications, release it to a core group of beta testers, then open a public beta, get distribution of the program into the hundreds or thousands of people, get feedback, release beta 2, see the user base continue to grow, get feedback, release beta 3... The program never gets out of beta, or could remain in beta for months or years. The original codebase would never have the opportunity of profiting from the ideas of others, though they would certainly have the opportunity of profiting from it. This would certainly cause friction between authors and imitators, since authors would be told, "It's in beta...was just released to my beta testers...have patience...etc." The phrase "to the public" is thus ill defined. So is "beta test." Roger
This page took 0.01 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.