4 ms·
It should be noted that the GPL requires you to pay forward , not back. You are under no obligation to release the code publicly or contribute to the original p
by icebraining 7y ago
It should be noted that the GPL requires you to pay forward , not back. You are under no obligation to release the code publicly or contribute to the original project.
- ghaff 7y agoThe parent comment as a whole made it pretty clear they were talking about modified code that is redistributed. (I can, of course, take code and modify it for internal use and I don't have obligations under the GPL.)
- icebraining 7y agoRedistribution doesn't mean public. I've worked for years extending A/LGPL code that we redistributed, yet much of it never saw the light of day, since our clients have no interest in publishing it (although they are free to do so, of course).
- ghaff 7y agoYou’re essentially working as contractors for the company in that case though. So you’re effectively part of the company and aren’t really distributing as the term is generally understood. Of course there is some ambiguity as there always is.
- icebraining 7y agoNo, there's no need for technicalities. The GPL only says you must distribute the source to the people to whom you have distributed binaries. It doesn't say you must publish it publicly.
- ghaff 7y agoI was assuming that if you were developing code for someone they would also get access to the sources. But you’re right. That’s not necessarily a given.
- icebraining 7y agoNo, they did get the sources. What I wrote is that you don't have to "release the code publicly or contribute to the original project." Obviously our clients (who got the sources) could have published them. But they have no incentive to do so.