Recommendation for a CL data structures library
in [Lisp]
|
Prev: [2nd CfP] 7th European Lisp Workshop at ECOOP'10, June 21/22
Next: §§§ 2010 Cheap wholesale ED Hardy Suit, Baby Suit, Lacoste Suit ect at www.rijing-trade.com <Paypal Payment>
From: Pascal J. Bourguignon on 21 Mar 2010 11:08 Nicolas Neuss <lastname(a)kit.edu> writes: > Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavallaro(a)pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> > writes: > >> Using them would place their employer or the commercial organization >> to which they belong under the obligation of publishing all of the >> source code for any released product that included your library. As a >> result, most people working on commercial published software, or who >> contemplate doing so in the future, simply avoid gpl libraries >> altogether. > > Here is a question which I find rather interesting: Is in-house use of > GPLed software allowed? It is quite clear that using GPLed software by > a single developer to run a commercial web server for example is > allowed. But in the case of multiple developers inside a company one > could either argue that the company operates as an entity, or > alternatively that the company by letting one of their developers > combine GPLed software with their own product is forced to give her/him > the whole software under GPL. In-house use would be outside of the scope of the GPL, since no "distribution" would occur. A more interesting question would be what happens with respect to holdings, and the daughter companies. In this case, I would argue distribution occurs (invoicing would have to occur legally AFAIK), and therefore GPL would apply. Which doesn't mean that YOU would get access to the code of course, only that the daughter company who buys it from another daughter company would get it (and be able to hire YOU instead of the sister company if them need a patch and the sister is unable or unwilling to provide it). -- __Pascal Bourguignon__
From: Nicolas Neuss on 21 Mar 2010 11:24 pjb(a)informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon) writes: > In-house use would be outside of the scope of the GPL, since no > "distribution" would occur. This means that in-house "distribution" to employees would not count as distribution in the GPL sense. OK, this might indeed be the most reasonable point of view. Nicolas
From: John Hasler on 21 Mar 2010 11:22 Raffael Cavallaro writes: > Using them would place their employer or the commercial organization > to which they belong under the obligation of publishing all of the > source code for any released product that included your library. They are not required to publish it. They are merely required to distribute it along with the binaries. If you offer source to everyone to whom you sell binaries you are done. > As a result, most people working on commercial [closed source] > published software, or who contemplate doing so in the future, simply > avoid gpl libraries altogether. And that's fine, just as it is fine that some of us avoid non-free libraries because source is not available or the terms are too restrictive. Nicolas writes: > Here is a question which I find rather interesting: Is in-house use of > GPLed software allowed? Yes. > But in the case of multiple developers inside a company one > could either argue that the company operates as an entity... It does. -- John Hasler jhasler(a)newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA
From: Pascal J. Bourguignon on 21 Mar 2010 11:32 Nicolas Neuss <lastname(a)kit.edu> writes: > pjb(a)informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon) writes: > >> In-house use would be outside of the scope of the GPL, since no >> "distribution" would occur. > > This means that in-house "distribution" to employees would not count as > distribution in the GPL sense. OK, this might indeed be the most > reasonable point of view. Yes, definitely. First, the most efficient companies won't have any "distribution". The new software would be instealled on the file server, and everybody could use it from here. And even in the less efficient companies, employees don't install softwarem (it's the job of the IT jockeys). -- __Pascal Bourguignon__
From: Raffael Cavallaro on 21 Mar 2010 14:50
On 2010-03-21 11:22:57 -0400, John Hasler said: > They are not required to publish it. They are merely required to > distribute it along with the binaries. If you offer source to everyone > to whom you sell binaries you are done. In practice this amounts to publication. Every customer would receive the source; every customer has the right to make it public; it would only take one customer excercising this right to make the source publicly available. -- Raffael Cavallaro |