On Oct 14, 2004, at 20:57, Asko Kauppi wrote:
I'm currently releasing LuaX as LGPL (no complaints there, so far).
With Hamster and Lumikki I've taken another road, more "strict" open
source I guess, due to their role as tools instead of end components.
What exactly do you think is non-GPL in my interpretation? Lot of
commercial software is done using gcc; where does this differ?
Well, for example that if I modify the work I need to provide the
modifications.
GPL is a cunning piece of work. Perhaps the most cunning thing about
GPL is that it only covers acts of copying and distribution.
Generally, under the GPL, I am free to do with a work as I please,
including running it however I like and modifying it however I like.
It is _only_ when I distribute my modified work that the GPL kicks in.
And even then I only have to distribute the source to those people
that I distribute the work to (though they, of course, can distribute
it to anyone). As long as I keep my modifications to myself I can do
what I like. And this counts within an organisation.
David Jones
Asko Kauppi wrote:
>Lumikki is released under the GPL license. You are free to use
the software in any project, for any purpose, as long as you don't
(need to) make modifications to it. If you need to modify, you also
need to provide the modifications to others that might benefit from
them. This is how GPL works in a nutshell.
