[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: The worst that can happen to GPLed code

From: Chris Jefferson
Subject: Re: The worst that can happen to GPLed code
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 14:28:18 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.6 (Windows/20040502)

Per Abrahamsen wrote:
Chris Jefferson <> writes:

However they do not have to make it clear in the normal
execution of the binary that they have made any changes. This is in my
opinion unacceptable if it's true.

For many free software projects, such notices IN THE NORMAL EXECUTION
of the binary would be prohibitive due to the number of people making
changes.  Just look at the number of names in the contributers or
change log files for e.g. Emacs or GCC.

If you really feel you need such a requirement, I don't believe you
are ready to set your software free.

Thank you, I think that is the best and most useful reply :)

At the moment, we'd still like to think the software would be associated with us, and therefore worry that (bad) variants might be associated with us too.

Therefore we feel the most useful idea is to do two releases. A GPLed version of the internal libraries (which are useful, but not functional by themselves. For variants / understanding what we did they explain all tho) and a closed source front end.

In the future when either a) We get more used to the idea of GPLing the whole lot, b) We don't have enough time to spend on it or c) someone makes useful contributions to the GPLed part which we want to make use of, then we'll GPL the lot. Hopefully this way everyone is happy :)

Thank you for your time,


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]