Community mailing list archives
Re: community license use in hosted envirnmentby
Mr Gellatly you can read more about distributing and coveying and its differences or no differences here
GPLv3 gives “making available to the public” as an example of propagation. What does this mean? Is making available a form of conveying?(#v3MakingAvailable)
One example of “making available to the public” is putting the software on a public web or FTP server. After you do this, some time may pass before anybody actually obtains the software from you—but because it could happen right away, you need to fulfill the GPL's obligations right away as well. Hence, we defined conveying to include this activity.
Since distribution and making available to the public are forms of propagation that are also conveying in GPLv3, what are some examples of propagation that do not constitute conveying? (#PropagationNotConveying)
Making copies of the software for yourself is the main form of propagation that is not conveying. You might do this to install the software on multiple computers, or to make backups.---It is always advised to do homework first before publishing your code and choosing a license to avoid complications or lengthy discussions afterwards
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Andreas Becker <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
To “convey” a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying.
To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.
Is “convey” in GPLv3 the same thing as what GPLv2 means by “distribute”?
Yes, more or less. During the course of enforcing GPLv2, we learned that some jurisdictions used the word “distribute” in their own copyright laws, but gave it different meanings. We invented a new term to make our intent clear and avoid any problems that could be caused by these differences.
So yes, they mean basically the same.--------My principles in this regards are: I prefer Support the Editor that actually make code and market than the one that complain and want only "take, take, take" qith no code just "because he can", But you know, that's my stupid position.It is fine to have such a position but you should never assume things which aren't actually the case ;-) Many here know this already and there are so many ways how you can contribute to a community or a product you are using or even when you are not using it at all, still you could contribute to it.
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Graeme Gellatly <email@example.com> wrote:To OP - Get a lawyer, this list will just confuse you.Andi,Your failure to incorrectly read something then write a massive email of disinformation never ceases to amaze - keyword - distribute (or convey under v3)On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 12:41 AM, Dominique Chabord <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:> No, if you are using LGPL base (v9.0) Agree. Everything proprietary you build on top of LGPLed code is ok. If you don't distribute copies of the LGPL parr, you don't have to publish.> No, if you are using LGPL base (v9.0)
Agree. Everything proprietary you build on top of LGPLed code is ok.
If you don't distribute copies of the LGPL parr, you don't have to