On Aug 25, 2:51*pm, Martin Gregorie
wrote:
On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 07:29:48 -0700, Darryl Ramm wrote:
What? Copyright very much applies to just about all open source
software. Unless an developer explicitly give up his copyright rights.

.. but under GPL cannot stop people modifying and further distributing
that fork.

and to publish source code to any
modifications to the GPL licensed code. Modifications *to the GPL code
must be published for any software made available publicly.

Not quite. The source must be made available to anybody who is using the
code but doesn't have to be broadcast or exposed on a public server. At
least, my reading of the GPL says you may only supply source on demand
with violating the GPL.

--
martin@ * | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org * * * |

Please read carefully what I wrote. I've dealt with a lot of complex
GNU and other open source licensing issues, including thorny
permutations of closed source drivers in open source products, bundles
of closed and open source software etc. I even got to deal with
Richard Stallman when we forgot to publish source updated for some
controversial (to some folks) changes we had made to Linux and
associated software. He was rightly ****ed off and I think he thought
we were trying to do this deliberately. It was just our release
process screw up and we never made the mistake again.

I wrote "Made available publicly"... and by that I meant as as in a
soaring software provided publicly for download -- that would require
the source to be made available equally for download. Well that's
GNU's take on it, my take on it and likely most developers and lawyers
take on it. There is a GNU faq covering this and more at -

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html

A private beta is another issue. People within the beta certainly need
to be provided the source code if they ask. But it may be messier than
that.

I am not commenting on the technical skills, merits, intents or
anything else on either side of this, but the LK8000 developers should
have been clearly aware of the GNU open source implications.

To your original post, not that you've looked at the GNU license
you'll see it centers around copyright rights. That is a complete
surprise to many people who made the same natural assumption you did.


Darryl