Re: About GPL3 req's for open src?

[Gustoo]

I think the argument is that if everyone who made a change to GPL3 no longer was obligated to share their work, since it diverged from the original, the entire point of GPL3 seems to be negated.

I don’t know anything about it at all
Tho

[xurai724]

Originally Posted by Gustoo [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I think the argument is that if everyone who made a change to GPL3 no longer was obligated to share their work, since it diverged from the original, the entire point of GPL3 seems to be negated.

I don’t know anything about it at all
Tho

Yep, this. As a developer, myself, I don't mess with GPL3 licenses unless my code is open source. If it was MIT license, P99 devs could do anything they want with it - close the source, etc.

GPL3, though? If you use it, you are legally obligated to share what you made with it open src; that's the point of the license; essentially "You use it, you share it". Since P99 is derived from a GPL3 license, P99 code should technically already have been open source from day 1.

[Kich867]

Originally Posted by xurai724 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yep, this. As a developer, myself, I don't mess with GPL3 licenses unless my code is open source. If it was MIT license, P99 devs could do anything they want with it - close the source, etc.

GPL3, though? If you use it, you are legally obligated to share what you made with it open src; that's the point of the license; essentially "You use it, you share it". Since P99 is derived from a GPL3 license, P99 code should technically already have been open source from day 1.

They're legally obligated? Hit up a lawyer dawg you got this! [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]