lwip-users
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[lwip-users] Re: Re: Re: [lwip] Should LwIP go (L)GPL ?


From: M. R. Brown
Subject: [lwip-users] Re: Re: Re: [lwip] Should LwIP go (L)GPL ?
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 00:05:10 -0000

--0OAP2g/MAC+5xKAE
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

* Paul Sheer <address@hidden> on Fri, Oct 18, 2002:

> > This is a common misconception with the *GPL.  GPL/LGPL does _not_ force
> > you to submit your modifications upstream.  You only have to provide so=
urce
> > if it is requested AND only to those who you distribute the binary to.
>=20
> what good is software if you cannot distribute it?
> in my own case we are trying to produce a product for retail!
>=20

Example:  Cygnus (now RHAT) provided a commercial version of GCC and
friends entitled GNU Pro.  This often included custom and proprietary ports
to various embedded and not-so-embedded architectures.  Because Cygnus sold
this modified version of GCC _for_profit_, they did not post the source for
anyone and everyone to grab.  They didn't have to.  Companies purchasing
GNU Pro tools could request sources if they wished, as this is part of the
GPL licensing requirement.  Some of those ports found themselves in the
public gnu.org CVS tree, others were left to the discretion of whomever
contracted Cygnus for that port.  There was nothing illegal about this
setup.

There are also numerous examples of companies that modify GPL software
in-house for their own use, and those modifications never see the light of
day.

> > If Company A modifies lwIP directly and never distributes the applicati=
on
> > externally, guess what?  You won't see their changes (and there's nothi=
ng to
> > force them to give them to you). =20
>=20
> > Even if Company A sells a modified GPL/LGPL lwIP to=20
> > Company B, Company B is _not_ obligated to give you those
> > modifications either.
>=20
> Yes they ARE obligated.
> This is because they are "distributing" a "work based on the program".
>=20

You still don't understand.  If I give my friend Joe a modification of a
GPL'd program that I didn't write, neither myself nor Joe are required
(obligated, forced, gagged or bound) to give Paul, the original author,
those modifications.  Also, it's Joe's perogative to distribute those
modifications to the entire planet, but he is _not_ required by the GPL
license to do so.

> Perhaps reading the GPL will clear this up:
>=20
>   2. You may modify your copy [...] provided that [...] to be
> licensed [...] under the terms of this License.
>=20
>   3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
> under Section 2) [...] provided that you also do one of the following:
>=20
>     a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
>     source code [...]
>=20
>     b) Accompany it with a written offer [...] to give any third
>     party [..] a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding
>     source code [...]
>=20

Right.  Nowhere does it state that source must be placed in a SASE and
mailed to the author of the Program.  Source only has to go where the
binary program is distributed.

I'd advise you to spend some time reading the GPL FAQs or mail one of the
FSF legal mailing lists.

M. R.

--0OAP2g/MAC+5xKAE
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE9sPVjaK6pP/GNw0URAlQnAJ4pGwsj7xvMVHpDFtqiSBE09JqL7QCfRQM8
iW2AJeJh4HM6zgWAwnjcSu8=
=XXp3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--0OAP2g/MAC+5xKAE--
[This message was sent through the lwip discussion list.]




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]