Net Integration's NITIX OS

[Thomas Bruno]

--=-55QGCUkJZDIUZKko+vhA
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> Have I fulfilled the GPL's requirements?  Your statements would seem to
> indicate "yes".

 Yes i too believe that the GPL is very clear, you do not have to
release binary or source of your modifications if you are not
distributing binary/source to other parties.

>=20
> 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)
>=20

If the binary is stolen then I don't believe it is the duty of the
developer to provide source to those individuals in which I did not
specifically hand my modifications too.  If i were to specifically hand
my bin/source to an individual, THEY can distribute it freely, and make
their own changes.  It is not my responsibility to provide source to the
4th party, because the 3rd party may have made their own mods.

> > > As I understand open source, it means that I need to=20
> > > distribute any modified source code to EVERYONE=20
> > > if I distribute even a single binary to anyone other than=20
> > > myself. (Myself can mean "my corporation" here, of=20
> > > course.) Sourceforge, for example does not permit=20
> > > people to distribute binaries alone, and they only host=20
> > > open source projects. Thus, if you are saying that=20
> > > _all third parties are licensed_ AND _only some third=20
> > > parties actually get source code_ you are not making=20
> > > sense, and I am in agreement with Jonathan Hale, your=20
> > > position is clearly breaking the spirit of the open source=20
> > > agreement.
> >=20
> > I am quite certain that if I give a modified Linux kernel=20
> > (with source) to other members of KCLUG, I am still=20
> > _not_  obligated to deliver source code to anyone who=20
> > asks to receive it.  I am only obligated to deliver the=20
> > modified source to any parties that have received the=20
> > modified binaries directly from me.  Any other parties=20
> > can receive the modified source from the same party=20
> > they received the modified binaries.  I have to _license_=20
> > the code to anybody who has a copy of it, but I do not=20
> > have to deliver it.  If delivering a modified binary+source=20
> > code to some members of KCLUG thereby obligated=20
> > me to deliver binary+source code to any and all parties=20
> > could quickly overwhelm my capability to deliver it. =20
> > This would thereby be a disincentive for me to even=20
> > develop any modifications in the first place.
>=20
> 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".
>=20
  This is unclear.. but I would assume that yes, you would have to
resupply the source in this kind of event.  If you just happened to miss
place it,  why should the cost be on the devel's head?

> 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?

correct,  4th party licensies recieve thier bin/source from the 3rd
party. =20

These are my understandings.

--=-55QGCUkJZDIUZKko+vhA
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBADLe8CVsg1UpxmOwRAk3WAJ0ceUwSJP5QrPjL2txqdlEhI2dtMACgiFkz
klWdz85KztKEm8b0yzdAGNA=
=zFgR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-55QGCUkJZDIUZKko+vhA--