Re: [ox-en] Does the GPL imply exchange?

• From: <thomas co-buero.de>
• Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 01:46:13 +0100

Just a short point:

Kermit wrote

I disagree.  I think that's exactly what Stallman and the GPL are saying.
Anyone who uses GPLed code in her own program (which makes it a derivative
work under copyright law, according to Stallman) must, under force of law,
release that program under the GPL and therefore make it freely available to
anybody.  Even if she doesn't want to.  And that's the basis for Stallman's
claim that using copyleft is not only idealistic, but also pragmatic.  Read
the example he gives.  Because we published a free C compiler, he writes, we
got a free C++ compiler.  "The benefit to our community is evident."  That's
an appeal to a bidirectional flow, isn't it?

That is true only in the case, where you want to distribute the
program. Then you are forced to publish the code. 
If you choose to use the derived work for you own, you don't have to.
In this sense the GPL prevents someone to force some other to exchange something just to have a copy of the program. 

There is one possible work arround: You may take money for
doing something with a program derived from GPL sources (for example 
selling web services).

Greetings, Thomas




_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/

• References:
  • [ox-en] Does the GPL imply exchange?
    • From: Kermit Snelson

• Next in thread: Re: [ox-en] Does the GPL imply exchange?
• Previous in thread: [ox-en] Does the GPL imply exchange?
• First in thread: RE: [ox-en] Threads "The Fading Altruism of Open Source" on <nettime>
• Last in thread: [ox-en] reputation (was Re: Open Money?)
• Previous thread: [ox-en] Threads "The Fading Altruism of Open Source" on <nettime>
• Next thread: [ox-en] Re: Open Source and Open Money
• Next by Date: Golden and green arrows (was: Re: [ox-en] Re: Open Money?)
• Prev by Date: Re: [ox-en] Re: Open Money?