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

JanWieck(at)t-online(dot)de (Jan Wieck) writes:

> Trond Eivind Glomsrød wrote:
> > JanWieck(at)t-online(dot)de (Jan Wieck) writes:
> >
> > > Trond Eivind Glomsrød wrote:
> > > > Mike Mascari <mascarm(at)mascari(dot)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.