[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Another GNU License Question
From: |
mike3 |
Subject: |
Re: Another GNU License Question |
Date: |
Sun, 12 Aug 2007 01:18:14 -0700 |
User-agent: |
G2/1.0 |
On Aug 12, 1:24 am, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
> mike3 <mike4...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > What exactly then is being said in the quoted passage?
>
> It defines "internal use", the situation where no distribution occurs.
> For example, if you made a lot of changes to a GPL program by
> inserting a bunch of private material, and then something breaks and
> you hire a programmer to fix it. This programmer does not have the
> right to distribute your modified program to the world under the terms
> of the GPL.
>
Oh, and the license is directed at this hired guy, then. But does the
terms under the GPL mean that _you_ cannot go and grant the hired
guy permission to distribute your program even if for some odd
reason you wanted to?
> --
> David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
- Another GNU License Question, mike3, 2007/08/11
- Re: Another GNU License Question, John Hasler, 2007/08/11
- Re: Another GNU License Question, mike3, 2007/08/12
- Re: Another GNU License Question, David Kastrup, 2007/08/12
- Re: Another GNU License Question,
mike3 <=
- Re: Another GNU License Question, David Kastrup, 2007/08/12
- Re: Another GNU License Question, mike3, 2007/08/12
- Re: Another GNU License Question, John Hasler, 2007/08/13
- Re: Another GNU License Question, mike3, 2007/08/20
- Re: Another GNU License Question, none, 2007/08/20
- Re: Another GNU License Question, mike3, 2007/08/26
- Re: Another GNU License Question, John Hasler, 2007/08/20
- Re: Another GNU License Question, mike3, 2007/08/26
- Re: Another GNU License Question, David Kastrup, 2007/08/14
- Re: Another GNU License Question, mike3, 2007/08/20