Skip to main content
Software Engineering

Return to Question

Commonmark migration
Source Link
Community Bot
Community Bot
  • 1

I see in the GPL license FAQ :

Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public? (#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic)

The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.

I always saw the GPL license as a more restrictive license than MIT, BSD, etc., and as a way of being sure that if modifications/improvements are done (and/or used in a commercial context), the improvements would benefit to the original author and the whole community. Because of the FAQ answer mentionned here, it seems that I was wrong.

#Question:

Question:

Doesn't the GPL license help to be sure that improvements of a software can benefit to the whole community? If so, are there some other well-known licenses that care about this question?

Let's take an example. Is there an open-source license that requires that if somebody does a new JSBIN by reusing parts of https://github.com/jsbin/jsbin, then this new "online service" would need to be open-source? It seems that GPL does not offer this, according to the point discussed in the first part of this question.

I see in the GPL license FAQ :

Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public? (#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic)

The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.

I always saw the GPL license as a more restrictive license than MIT, BSD, etc., and as a way of being sure that if modifications/improvements are done (and/or used in a commercial context), the improvements would benefit to the original author and the whole community. Because of the FAQ answer mentionned here, it seems that I was wrong.

#Question:

Doesn't the GPL license help to be sure that improvements of a software can benefit to the whole community? If so, are there some other well-known licenses that care about this question?

Let's take an example. Is there an open-source license that requires that if somebody does a new JSBIN by reusing parts of https://github.com/jsbin/jsbin, then this new "online service" would need to be open-source? It seems that GPL does not offer this, according to the point discussed in the first part of this question.

I see in the GPL license FAQ :

Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public? (#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic)

The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.

I always saw the GPL license as a more restrictive license than MIT, BSD, etc., and as a way of being sure that if modifications/improvements are done (and/or used in a commercial context), the improvements would benefit to the original author and the whole community. Because of the FAQ answer mentionned here, it seems that I was wrong.

Question:

Doesn't the GPL license help to be sure that improvements of a software can benefit to the whole community? If so, are there some other well-known licenses that care about this question?

Let's take an example. Is there an open-source license that requires that if somebody does a new JSBIN by reusing parts of https://github.com/jsbin/jsbin, then this new "online service" would need to be open-source? It seems that GPL does not offer this, according to the point discussed in the first part of this question.

Source Link
Basj
Basj
  • 227
  • 1
  • 9

Open-source licenses and modifications

I see in the GPL license FAQ :

Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public? (#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic)

The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.

I always saw the GPL license as a more restrictive license than MIT, BSD, etc., and as a way of being sure that if modifications/improvements are done (and/or used in a commercial context), the improvements would benefit to the original author and the whole community. Because of the FAQ answer mentionned here, it seems that I was wrong.

#Question:

Doesn't the GPL license help to be sure that improvements of a software can benefit to the whole community? If so, are there some other well-known licenses that care about this question?

Let's take an example. Is there an open-source license that requires that if somebody does a new JSBIN by reusing parts of https://github.com/jsbin/jsbin, then this new "online service" would need to be open-source? It seems that GPL does not offer this, according to the point discussed in the first part of this question.