Active Topics
-
[Announce] coderus unrestricted system-ui (297)
to MeeGo / Harmattan by nieldk - 5 days, 12 hrs ago -
Sailfish OS for the Motorola Moto G7 Power (XT1955-5) - (ocean) (8)
to SailfishOS by edp17 - 6 days, 4 hrs ago - more...
 |
|
2007-11-07
, 12:56
|
|
Posts: 117 |
Thanked: 22 times |
Joined on Apr 2007
|
#42
|
Originally Posted by rs-px
I'm not sure how a closed beta chimes with the GPL, however. If you redistribute modified GPL code, even as part of a restricted beta trial, then you have to make the source code publicly available. You can't restrict access for any reason.
That's not true:
If you redistribute soemthing with GPL you must give the source to the people, you give the programm. And they have the right to redistribute it again.
So the betatesters are allowed to make it public. But they won't because they know why it is a closed beta and they want to be beta testers again.
 |
|
2007-11-07
, 12:59
|
|
Posts: 1,463 |
Thanked: 81 times |
Joined on Oct 2005
@ UK
|
#43
|
Similarly, a lot of the source code which is open is already available in Chinook; and the *offer* to provide the source to the people to whom you've distributed the binary needs to be present. Not the source itself.
People on the beta programme could share the binaries of the GPLed code, but not the firmware image itself - as that's not GPLed.
People on the beta programme could share the binaries of the GPLed code, but not the firmware image itself - as that's not GPLed.
|
|
2007-11-07
, 13:16
|
|
Posts: 255 |
Thanked: 15 times |
Joined on Oct 2007
@ United Kingdom
|
#44
|
Originally Posted by kotzkind
I don't understand what you're saying.
That's not true:
If you redistribute soemthing with GPL you must give the source to the people, you give the programm. And they have the right to redistribute it again.
So the betatesters are allowed to make it public. But they won't because they know why it is a closed beta and they want to be beta testers again.
If you redistribute a binary compilation of GPL licensed source code, you don't have to "give" the source code to anybody. You have to make it available, maybe at a website, or even printed out if you want. But there's no need to include the source code with every binary you redistribute.
Yes, the beta testers can redistribute the source or the binary. But isn't that what I said? So if somebody tried to run a closed beta project involving modified GPL code, and stopped contributors redistributing the beta, then they would be contravening the GPL. All you could do is ask them not to do so. It's within their rights to do so.
|
|
2007-11-07
, 13:19
|
|
Posts: 255 |
Thanked: 15 times |
Joined on Oct 2007
@ United Kingdom
|
#45
|
Originally Posted by aflegg
Yes. So I could ask for source code of the GPL components included in the firmware image file, but that doesn't mean I have a right to ask for the source code for the entire firmeware image. Effectively here the firmware image is a container archive, like a zip or tarball, containing lots of separate binaries.
Similarly, a lot of the source code which is open is already available in Chinook; and the *offer* to provide the source to the people to whom you've distributed the binary needs to be present. Not the source itself.
People on the beta programme could share the binaries of the GPLed code, but not the firmware image itself - as that's not GPLed.
|
|
2007-11-07
, 13:26
|
|
Posts: 117 |
Thanked: 22 times |
Joined on Apr 2007
|
#46
|
Originally Posted by rs-px
You don't have to make the source available or ship it with the package. You just have to give the source to that people you gave the binary if they ask.
I don't understand what you're saying.
If you redistribute a binary compilation of GPL licensed source code, you don't have to "give" the source code to anybody. You have to make it available, maybe at a website, or even printed out if you want. But there's no need to include the source code with every binary you redistribute.
You don't have to do more but you can.
And thats one weak point of the GPL.
When write a apllication for a companie with GPL and make it public and a other companie makes the code better and sells the application to a third companie for in-companie use, nobody has to give you the code. Only the second companie has to give the third companie the code, if they demand it.
Nobody has to give you any GPLed code until you get something under the GPL.
 |
|
2007-11-07
, 13:50
|
|
Posts: 11,700 |
Thanked: 10,045 times |
Joined on Jun 2006
@ North Texas, USA
|
#47
|
Originally Posted by rs-px
Has everyone seen the new source disclaimer coming with OS2008? I think I saw it made public somewhere (I'm not gonna do it though
Yes. So I could ask for source code of the GPL components included in the firmware image file, but that doesn't mean I have a right to ask for the source code for the entire firmeware image. Effectively here the firmware image is a container archive, like a zip or tarball, containing lots of separate binaries.
)...
__________________
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net
 |
|
2007-11-07
, 15:49
|
|
Posts: 273 |
Thanked: 15 times |
Joined on Oct 2007
|
#48
|
I just hope we're not looking at too long a lag for the major apps to be recompiled. Top of the list for me would be FBReader.
|
|
2007-11-07
, 16:40
|
|
Posts: 11,700 |
Thanked: 10,045 times |
Joined on Jun 2006
@ North Texas, USA
|
#49
|
I was not encouraged by the response to my poll on the subject...
__________________
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net
|
|
2007-11-07
, 16:55
|
|
Posts: 273 |
Thanked: 15 times |
Joined on Oct 2007
|
#50
|
What poll are you referring to Tex?
I'm not sure how a closed beta chimes with the GPL, however. If you redistribute modified GPL code, even as part of a restricted beta trial, then you have to make the source code publicly available. You can't restrict access for any reason.