Re: [HACKERS] Re: Revised Copyright: is this morepalatable?

JanWieck@t-online.de (Jan Wieck) writes:

> Trond Eivind Glomsrød wrote:
> > JanWieck@t-online.de (Jan Wieck) writes:
> >
> > > Trond Eivind Glomsrød wrote:
> > > > Mike Mascari <mascarm@mascari.com> writes:
> > > >
> > > > > This is not something new. SunOS, AIX, HPUX, etc. all have (at
> > > > > one time or another) considerable BSD roots. And yet FreeBSD
> > > > > still exists... All GPL does is 'poison' the pot by prohibiting
> > > > > commercial spawns which may leverage the code.
> > > >
> > > > GPL doesn't prohibit commercial spawns - it just requires you to send
> > > > the source along.
> > >
> > >     So  if  someone  offers  $$$  for  implementation of Postgres
> > >     feature XYZ I don't have to make that code open source?
> >
> > You don't have to tell the world they can have it for free - you can
> > sell it, and develop it by demand.
> >
> > >     Only  need  to  ship  the  code  to the one paying
> >
> > Yes.
>
>     Now  I  don't want to ship the source code. My customer would
>     be  happy  with  a  patched  8.2.3  binary  as  long  as  I'm
>     responsible  to  patch  future  versions  until I release the
>     sources. Is that OK?

You don't have to give the customer the source, as long as you
gurantee that he gets it (for cost of distribution) if he wants it.


--
Trond Eivind Glomsrød
Red Hat, Inc.