5 ms·
Yes, though, as I understand it in this case the government is the user and the developer where as a lot of large companies avoid sharing changes by offering th
by pmorici 14y ago
Yes, though, as I understand it in this case the government is the user and the developer where as a lot of large companies avoid sharing changes by offering their software as a web service (ie: they don't have to distribute the binary) something which I believe changes to the GPL in v3 were supposed to address.
- angusgr 14y agoYou're thinking of AGPL for requiring source distribution when offering a service over a network. IANAL but I don't believe GPLv3 changes anything over GPLv2 in this case, although it does tighten up some loopholes in v2 over what does and does not qualify as "distribution" (although in all cases the end user is still sent the software to run on their hardware, not just the results of the software.)
- ConstantineXVI 14y agoThe AGPL variant has a clause for web services, AFAIK the vanilla GPLv3 does no such thing.
- zerohp 14y agoEven if the government was buying it from Raytheon, this would only mean that the government must receive a copy of the source code under the GPL. It does not mean the software must be distributed freely to everyone. As I understand it.
- ams6110 14y agoThat's my understanding as well. If you distribute the software, you must distribute the source upon request. You're under no obligation to distribute something you develop for your own use, however.