Re:Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL
by read_again on Tuesday July 23, 2013 @08:51PM
(#6093882)
GP wording was perhaps a bit awkward, but I don't think he meant that modifications had to be released unilaterally: He just indicated the difference between gplv2 and v3 in the situations when the licenses force the release of the modifications (ie. when distributing the program in non source form).
Re:Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL
by Dylan16807 on Tuesday July 23, 2013 @03:25PM
(#6092332)
I wonder why people are voting you down. The GP is definitely confusing GPL with AGPL.
The GPL states and has always stated: If you modify code that is licensed as GPL and want to share it, the modified version needs to be GPL as well ("share alike").
But: Nobody forces you to release anything. If you don't release software, you don't need to make a license for it. If you want, you can license it as "Adam Zochowski Super License 5000". Frame it and put it on your wall, nobody gives a damn.
The GPL only governs and can only govern what happens when you actually do release (GPLv3 uses the term "convey") software to other people.
Sidenote: This post again confirms Stallmans rule of thumb that anybody using the utterly corrupt term "Intellectual Property" is either a moron or trying to mislead you.