> >>> However, we now now that there are GPL police
> out there and
> >>> enforcing the GPL on people who modify the
> freely available code
> >>> out there, but do not share their
> modifications :(
>
> >> It's not a GPL violation or copyright
> infringement to modify
> >> software under the GPL. It's not a GPL
> violatino or copyright
> >> infringement to keep your modifications private to
> yourself.
>
> > Try telling Zenwalk and Mepis that
>
> Both Zenwalk and Mepis allegedly *distribute* the code,
> they didn't
> keep it to themselves. And they allegedly distribute it
> only as
> object code, without complying with the requirements for
> distributing
> object code. That's what allegedly makes them GPL
> infringers.
>
> They're not merely modifying the code and refraining
> from sharing the
> modifications. As I wrote above, making modifications and
> refraining
> from distributing the result is permitted by the GPL.
>
> --
Your meaning of object code is binary code?
and the modifications is the source code?
If I understand your point, they released versions of Linux only as binary, but without providing the sources(source code) for their modifications.
You can do whatever you want with the code, just not release it to anyone and if you do, you have to provide the source code?
Is that correct?
Regards,
Antonio
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
