Zed Shaw: Why I (A/L)GPL

Re:Zed Shaw: Why I (A/L)GPL by enjo on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @07:24PM (#704833)

In the case of mongrel or lamson, I don't see the difference. All of the binding clauses of the GPL apply to distribution. It isn't until I distribute it that I have any responsibilities at all.

So if I use mongrel or lamson I'm not distributing that code in binary or source form. Thus, if I want to use the code I can do whatever the hell I want (modify it, use it, print it out and bathe in)... until I distribute it somehow (which a typical web-app never does) it makes zero difference.

I'm VERY confused after reading this rant as to what Zed thinks this actually does.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Zed Shaw: Why I (A/L)GPL by nudded on Wednesday July 15, 2009 @03:11AM (#705310)

say Zed released Mongrel under a BSD-license, then any big company (or any person really) could come in and modify it, make it better and then sell it. And Zed would be left with nothing. That's what GPL is for, adjusting it is fine, but you can't make money out of a redistributed modified version.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Zed Shaw: Why I (A/L)GPL by Tichy on Wednesday July 15, 2009 @03:33AM (#705333)

You can sell GPLed software, Linux distributors did it for years.

[ Parent | on HN ]