7 ms·

Yeah the point I'm trying to make here is that you have to publish the sources once you publish a modified binary for the public, so that the changes that you m

Yeah the point I'm trying to make here is that you have to publish the sources once you publish a modified binary for the public, so that the changes that you made are public in source as well. That's what's meant by "giving back" because you don't necessarily give stuff back to the developer, but the community. Also a lot of times you can even see how patches aren't accepted upstream but are used to get an idea to fix an issue or add a feature with then either heavily modified code or code that was completely written from scratch.

bruce511 2y ago
>> that you have to publish the sources Again, this is something of a simplification. Firstly, you don't have to "publish" the sources - you need to make the source available to -users-, and of course you are entitled to limit who can use it. Of course it's common to just put the source where anyone can get it, it's common to push your alterations back at the author. Its common enough that some people feel this is required by the license (hence the angst over Fedora) bug it's not. I bring this up not just to be contrarian, but because while these details are subtle they are enormously important. A license grants rights and requires specific obligations. It's worth being clear and specific when discussing licenses because there are a lot of common misunderstandings , which in turn lead to strong emotions when developers actually do what the license says (and no more.)
- Grimeton 2y ago
  >Again, this is something of a simplification. Firstly, you don't have to "publish" the sources - you need to make the source available to -users-, and of course you are entitled to limit who can use it. How do I make the sources available to users w/o making them public? And if I can limit who can use it, how doesn't that void the whole idea of the GPL? How do we explain all the law suites that have been there over the decades if the sources don't need to be made public and one can limit who can have access to sources and/or binaries?
  - bruce511 2y ago
    The source can be provided to users in many different ways. I could, gor example, burn it on a CD and post it yo the user. Or set up a FTP site which requires a user to login (a login they have from being a user.) That's not making it public, in the sense that "anyone can get to it." Of course the user can then fo whatever they like with it, including posting it publically to say GitHub. Other people can then download it. Of course, as an author I'm not required to keep you as a user. I might require (my) users to pay to be a user. I -might- ask users not to post publically to preserve my income and keep the product viable. If you do something that I feel hurts me I can choose to cease supplying you with updates. All of this is perfectly in terms with Free and OSS licenses. And has occurred. As an aside, there haven't been that many lawsuits. Where they have happened its usually with commodity hardware where an org like the FSF have been able to purchase a device and get some standing. But in most cases only a copyright owner can sue for copyright infringement. It takes the author to sue - and for most authors there are neither funds, time or desire to pursue such lawsuits.
    - Grimeton 2y ago
      [flagged]

bruce511 2y ago

>> that you have to publish the sources Again, this is something of a simplification. Firstly, you don't have to "publish" the sources - you need to make the source available to -users-, and of course you are entitled to limit who can use it. Of course it's common to just put the source where anyone can get it, it's common to push your alterations back at the author. Its common enough that some people feel this is required by the license (hence the angst over Fedora) bug it's not. I bring this up not just to be contrarian, but because while these details are subtle they are enormously important. A license grants rights and requires specific obligations. It's worth being clear and specific when discussing licenses because there are a lot of common misunderstandings , which in turn lead to strong emotions when developers actually do what the license says (and no more.)

Grimeton 2y ago
>Again, this is something of a simplification. Firstly, you don't have to "publish" the sources - you need to make the source available to -users-, and of course you are entitled to limit who can use it. How do I make the sources available to users w/o making them public? And if I can limit who can use it, how doesn't that void the whole idea of the GPL? How do we explain all the law suites that have been there over the decades if the sources don't need to be made public and one can limit who can have access to sources and/or binaries?
- bruce511 2y ago
  The source can be provided to users in many different ways. I could, gor example, burn it on a CD and post it yo the user. Or set up a FTP site which requires a user to login (a login they have from being a user.) That's not making it public, in the sense that "anyone can get to it." Of course the user can then fo whatever they like with it, including posting it publically to say GitHub. Other people can then download it. Of course, as an author I'm not required to keep you as a user. I might require (my) users to pay to be a user. I -might- ask users not to post publically to preserve my income and keep the product viable. If you do something that I feel hurts me I can choose to cease supplying you with updates. All of this is perfectly in terms with Free and OSS licenses. And has occurred. As an aside, there haven't been that many lawsuits. Where they have happened its usually with commodity hardware where an org like the FSF have been able to purchase a device and get some standing. But in most cases only a copyright owner can sue for copyright infringement. It takes the author to sue - and for most authors there are neither funds, time or desire to pursue such lawsuits.
  - Grimeton 2y ago
    [flagged]