2 ms·

As long as the fork is only used in-house I'm the customer. I do have access to my own source code. GPL is satisfied. I might as well create a closed fork and h

As long as the fork is only used in-house I'm the customer. I do have access to my own source code. GPL is satisfied. I might as well create a closed fork and hand over the code to the people that buy my product. I can't place any restrictions on what they do with the modified source, but as long as I give them access to the source as required by the GPL that's fine as well. If they choose not to redistribute - fine as well. I might even create a closed fork for tinkering and not do anything with it. It's not the act of creating a closed fork that violates the GPL. It's redistribution without source - and that's independent of wether it's a fork or the original version.

esbwhat 14y ago
redistribution in a non-compatible license is also a GPL violation. Source present or not. You can't release a forked GPL product under e.g. the BSD license
- Xylakant 14y ago
  That's basically what I said: The GPL violation can happen on redistribution - but it doesn't happen on forking the project.
- bunderbunder 14y ago
  From the GPL's perspective, a closed GitHub fork isn't really any different from running your own source control locally. (I'd say it's that way from any reasonable perspective, too. There's nothing wrong with wanting to do your tinkering in private.) And even for software that's being redistributed there's never been any requirement in the GPL that you have to make your source control public. The GPL's conditions can just as easily be met by distributing your software along with a tarball of the version of the source that was used to build it.
  - Xylakant 14y ago
    Actually you can meet the license by including a written offer to supply the source on demand. There's no requirement to provide the source along with the binary. You're even allowed to charge reasonable costs for sending the source. So you could in theory go and include a statement that the source is available on dvd and you charge 10 euros for shipping and handling. Section 6 from the GPL (distribution of non source-forms) b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge. It makes things harder for the people that want to just contribute and is not nice in general, but it's covered by the license.

esbwhat 14y ago

redistribution in a non-compatible license is also a GPL violation. Source present or not. You can't release a forked GPL product under e.g. the BSD license

Xylakant 14y ago
That's basically what I said: The GPL violation can happen on redistribution - but it doesn't happen on forking the project.
bunderbunder 14y ago
From the GPL's perspective, a closed GitHub fork isn't really any different from running your own source control locally. (I'd say it's that way from any reasonable perspective, too. There's nothing wrong with wanting to do your tinkering in private.) And even for software that's being redistributed there's never been any requirement in the GPL that you have to make your source control public. The GPL's conditions can just as easily be met by distributing your software along with a tarball of the version of the source that was used to build it.
- Xylakant 14y ago
  Actually you can meet the license by including a written offer to supply the source on demand. There's no requirement to provide the source along with the binary. You're even allowed to charge reasonable costs for sending the source. So you could in theory go and include a statement that the source is available on dvd and you charge 10 euros for shipping and handling. Section 6 from the GPL (distribution of non source-forms) b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge. It makes things harder for the people that want to just contribute and is not nice in general, but it's covered by the license.