Red Hat Bugzilla: vecirek jen pro zvane?

Martin Hejna m.hejna na worldonline.cz
Pátek Srpen 10 14:50:17 CEST 2001



Dne pá 10. srpen 2001 08:54 jste napsal(a):
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2001 05:38:16 +0000 (UTC), Marek Blasko wrote:
> :> Je vobec podla GNU legalne urobit patche a vysledok neurobit public???
> :> Nech je to aj len na par tyzdnov?
> :
> : inak by si musel KAZDU aj najmensiu verziu relasovat. GNU nehovori ze to
> : musis zverejnit hovori ze AK program poskitnes druhej strane tak musi
> : mat pristup k zdrojakom.
>
> ... a spolu s nou aj akakolvek tretia strana:
>
>     b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
>     whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
>     part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
>     parties under the terms of this License.
>
> Myslim, ze rozoslanie balikov FedExom sa da chapat ako "distribute
> or publish" :-) Neviem o tom, ze by vsetci beta testeri boli
> zamestnancami firmy RedHat.

IMHO to ze treti strana ma licenci na ten program, jeste neznamena, ze ma i 
ten program. 

Viz citace z gpl-faq:

-----------
   The GPL says that modified versions, if released, must be "licensed ... to
    all third parties." Who are these third parties?
 
        Section 2 says that modified versions you distribute must be licensed
        to all third parties under the GPL. "All third parties" means
        absolutely everyone--but this does not require you to *do* anything
        physically for them. It only means they have a license from you,
        under the GPL, for your version.
 
 ----------------

a jeste jedna citace, take z gpl-faq:

----------------
 
    I just found out that a company has a copy of a GPL'ed program, and it 
costs    money to get it. Aren't they violating the GPL by not making it 
available on    the Internet?
 
        No. The GPL does not require anyone to use the Internet for
        distribution. It also does not require anyone in particular to
        redistribute the program. And (outside of one special case), even if
        someone does decide to redistribute the program sometimes, the GPL
        doesn't say he has to distribute a copy to you in particular, or any
        other person in particular.
 
   What the GPL requires is that he must have the freedom to distribute a
   copy to you if he wishes to. Once the copyright holder does distribute a
   copy program to someone, that someone can then redistribute the program to
   you, or to anyone else, as he sees fit.

----------------

Zde se podle me primo rika, ze nikdo nema povinnost dat ten program prave vam.
I kdyz mi neni jasne co se mysli tou jednou vyjimkou (outside of one special 
case) .


Take si myslim, ze GPL rika ze kdyz sirite pouze binarky, musite prilozit 
zdrojak (popr. dat nabidku). -- to podle me znamena OKAMZITE, ne az si 
vzpomenete. Tedy Corel IMHO porusil GPL.

Martin Hejna.


Další informace o konferenci Linux