Net Integration's NITIX OS

[Leo J Mauler]

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 15:45:13 -0600 Hal Duston <hduston at speedscript.com>
writes:
> On Sun, 2004-01-18 at 14:51, DCT Jared wrote:
> > On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 11:42:24 -0600, Hal Duston wrote:
> > > Does this mean that I have to _license_ my changes to 
> > > the Linux kernel to all third parties? Yes. Does this mean 
> > > that I have to _distribute_ my modified sources to all 
> > > third parties? No.
> > 
> > Uh, this is not making sense. You mean to tell me that
> > I can give you a license but do not need to follow up
> > with actual code?
> 
> That is correct.  I only have to give the source code to those 
> parties to whom I give the binary code.  If I take my modified 
> kernel and give it to a single other member of KCLUG, and 
> also give them a copy of the source code, I have thereby 
> fulfilled  my entire obligations with regard to the GPL.  I have 
> to give all parties a _license_ to the source code so that any 
> other party can use the code as the might receive it from
> the other member of KCLUG to whom I have given the 
> source code.

Let me see if I understand you correctly.

Say I create a new Linux kernel with a number of modifications. I
announce that I have done so on several common Linux forums, such as
comp.os.linux.advocacy and the KCLUG mailing list. I even have a website
on which you can see me crowing about how I've created this modified
Linux kernel, including a streaming video of two computers side by side
demonstrating the benefits of the modified Linux kernel.

Then I sit on the *binary* of the kernel and never hand it out to ANYONE.
 I also never hand out the source code.  The kernel is used on my home
machines only.  No one ever gets to see the source code or receive the
binary.

Have I fulfilled the GPL's requirements?  Your statements would seem to
indicate "yes".

And can I presume that the GPL says that if that modified kernel is
*stolen* out of my home and then redistributed to someone else, that the
third party not directly involved in the theft cannot make a claim of
"license" to the source code?  (assuming of course that the thief cannot
make a claim of license as well)

> > As I understand open source, it means that I need to 
> > distribute any modified source code to EVERYONE 
> > if I distribute even a single binary to anyone other than 
> > myself. (Myself can mean "my corporation" here, of 
> > course.) Sourceforge, for example does not permit 
> > people to distribute binaries alone, and they only host 
> > open source projects. Thus, if you are saying that 
> > _all third parties are licensed_ AND _only some third 
> > parties actually get source code_ you are not making 
> > sense, and I am in agreement with Jonathan Hale, your 
> > position is clearly breaking the spirit of the open source 
> > agreement.
> 
> I am quite certain that if I give a modified Linux kernel 
> (with source) to other members of KCLUG, I am still 
> _not_  obligated to deliver source code to anyone who 
> asks to receive it.  I am only obligated to deliver the 
> modified source to any parties that have received the 
> modified binaries directly from me.  Any other parties 
> can receive the modified source from the same party 
> they received the modified binaries.  I have to _license_ 
> the code to anybody who has a copy of it, but I do not 
> have to deliver it.  If delivering a modified binary+source 
> code to some members of KCLUG thereby obligated 
> me to deliver binary+source code to any and all parties 
> could quickly overwhelm my capability to deliver it.  
> This would thereby be a disincentive for me to even 
> develop any modifications in the first place.

But you would still be required to provide the source code to a KCLUG
member you had given a binary+source CD to, if they requested the source
code again, correct?  I'm thinking in terms of "they get home, there's a
big scratch on the binary+source CD you originally handed them, and the
source code is inaccessible while the binary kernel is still accessible".

The parties to whom you directly handed the binary+source can still
request additional copies of the source if their copies of the source
have become inaccessible or lost, correct?  It is only parties beyond the
KCLUG members (continuing the analogy) who cannot make direct requests to
the author for source code, correct?

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!