Re: [tlug] GPL and Open Source Licences

[simon colston <simon@example.com>]

Pietro Zuco wrote:
> On Friday 31 December 2004 09:57, simon colston wrote:
> 
>>If I link to some GPLed code I understand that I have to licence my code
>>under the GPL too.  If I then distribute my program I understand that I
>>  also have to distribute the source code as well.

> 
> So, you can for example sell the program and sell the source code. It's logic, 
> because provide the source code have a cost for you and maybe you can't 
> affront it.
> But this don't mean that the source is secret!
> After, someone else, can sell the program again, or modify it. 
> The source code have to be available in some way. For example you can sell the 
> source code, but after I can copy it to my friends or sell it again.
> 

OK, so let's say I sell the program and the source to one customer under 
the GPL.  I understand that under the GPL the customer *can* copy, 
modify and make the source public but is that customer _obliged_ to do 
so?  Can the source be kept secret between me and my one and only 
customer for this program? Or, can anyone write to my customer and force 
them to give them a copy of the source because it is licenced under the GPL?

I can see that the GPL is great for a program with many, many users. 
You create a community around the program and everyone contributes, more 
eyes looking for problems is a good thing.  But when a program is 
written specifically for use by one user/organization only, then there 
are very few benefits in that program being licenced under the GPL.  In 
my opinion the source *should* be made available to the 
user/organization who are using the program - if they decide they don't 
like me they can get someone else to fix their program in the future - 
but making the source public serves no purpose at all, as far as I can see.

-- 
simon colston