4 ms·

Conditionally forced sharing is still forced sharing. NeXT was forced to share the Objective C compiler code with its customers because the GCC was under the GN

Conditionally forced sharing is still forced sharing. NeXT was forced to share the Objective C compiler code with its customers because the GCC was under the GNU GPL. If NeXT had not distributed the GCC compiler and simply used it internally, the conditional sharing clause would not have kicked in. The GNU AGPL has even a lesser conditional trigger, access over a network. What neither the GNU GPL nor the GNU AGPL require under any circumstances is contribution of modifications upstream or global sharing. You are only required (when the conditions kick in) to share your source with those who use your GNU {,A}GPLed software and not restrict them from modifying and sharing the source. My shorthand statement to which you objected was incomplete, but definitely not incorrect. All forms of the GNU {,A,L}GPL have certain conditions in which you are required to make available the source and any modifications you have made to those who have obtained your software under such a license. (Of course, this also only applies to downstream authors and users; the original authors are under no such obligation.)

loup-vaillant 17y ago
It seems we agree. I just called you sloppy because it's not the first time I see that shorthand statement (whether it comes from you of from others). I feel that many people take it at face value and actually think that "the GPL forces to share modification", unconditionally.
- rick888 17y ago
  "I feel that many people take it at face value and actually think that "the GPL forces to share modification", unconditionally." If you use GNU licensed software, you are required to give out all of your changes to anyone that asks. In addition to this, anyone that requests the source can just as easily start sharing it and all of your modifications for free. It sounds like you are getting annoyed because people aren't stating the obvious.
  - halostatue 17y ago
    I'm not a fan of the GNU GPL for most cases, but your statement isn't quite correct. You are required to give out all of your changes to anyone to whom you distribute asks. If I am a downstream ISV that has code under the GNU GPL because of upstream incorporation and sell my software to users, only those users I sell my software to may legitimately ask for a copy of the source. I cannot restrict them from giving it away or sharing it, but I don't have to honour all requests for the source and my modifications—just the ones from people I've distributed the software to. Most businesses that use GNU GPLed software choose to either link to the upstream and host local patches, or host their custom distribution entirely, effectively giving the software away to everyone. They aren't required to do so by the terms of the license.
  - loup-vaillant 17y ago
    You just said that if you download a copy of Emacs, then make some modifications to it, then I can force you to surrender those modifications to me. That is wrong. So, I am getting annoyed because you (and many others) don't understand the GPL. Go read it. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html

loup-vaillant 17y ago

It seems we agree. I just called you sloppy because it's not the first time I see that shorthand statement (whether it comes from you of from others). I feel that many people take it at face value and actually think that "the GPL forces to share modification", unconditionally.

rick888 17y ago
"I feel that many people take it at face value and actually think that "the GPL forces to share modification", unconditionally." If you use GNU licensed software, you are required to give out all of your changes to anyone that asks. In addition to this, anyone that requests the source can just as easily start sharing it and all of your modifications for free. It sounds like you are getting annoyed because people aren't stating the obvious.
- halostatue 17y ago
  I'm not a fan of the GNU GPL for most cases, but your statement isn't quite correct. You are required to give out all of your changes to anyone to whom you distribute asks. If I am a downstream ISV that has code under the GNU GPL because of upstream incorporation and sell my software to users, only those users I sell my software to may legitimately ask for a copy of the source. I cannot restrict them from giving it away or sharing it, but I don't have to honour all requests for the source and my modifications—just the ones from people I've distributed the software to. Most businesses that use GNU GPLed software choose to either link to the upstream and host local patches, or host their custom distribution entirely, effectively giving the software away to everyone. They aren't required to do so by the terms of the license.
- loup-vaillant 17y ago
  You just said that if you download a copy of Emacs, then make some modifications to it, then I can force you to surrender those modifications to me. That is wrong. So, I am getting annoyed because you (and many others) don't understand the GPL. Go read it. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html