GPL Terms (Was: AMIOPEN: etc....)

[Mike Coleman]

Bradley Miller <bradmiller at dslonramp.com> writes:
> That's what has always been in the back of my mind, and Hal's definition is
> the best way ever put that I've seen.  That makes perfect sense from a
> company standpoint, because I can take something and massage it to meet the
> needs of a customer and then sell that to the customer.   Let's face it,
> even with really good GPL software, there will always be massaging that is
> needed to make things work right or perhaps more inline with a customer
> need.   As long as I'm not changing things and distributing it back to
> *EVERYONE* with changes, it shouldn't be an issue . . . right?   

Yes, as far as I know, you only have to provide source to whomever you provide
binaries to.  That source *does* have to be GPLed, though, which means that
your client can further distribute and modify it as they please (in accordance
with the GPL) without having to ask you.

> I like to look at most GPL software as a good tool that needs accessories.

As long as you aren't planning a business on proprietary accessories, you're
good.  (I've had some clients that needed a little education in this
department.)

-- 
Mike Coleman, mkc at mathdogs.com
http://www.mathdogs.com