From: Jeffrey 'jf' Lim <jfs.world@...>
Date: 2008-06-26T23:34:49+09:00
Subject: Re: Zed and Luis drop the bomb on Ruby's poor performance

------=_Part_9855_8517062.1214491025574
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 10:58 PM, grocery_stocker <cdalten@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jun 23, 7:24 am, "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <zn...@cesmail.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > The way I interpret open source licenses, if you take an open source
> > toolset, squeeze all the major bottlenecks out of it and put it into
> > production in a server, there's no requirement for you to release the
> > source of your hacks as long as you don't attempt to distribute the
> > resulting binaries. :)
> >
> > I've speculated a bit on what I think might happen in my blog.
>
> I could be wrong, but I believe that only applies to the BSD license.
> Not the GNU one.
>

And yes, you're wrong there. It's about not (Shot's made the point about the
AGPL, but I havent taken a look at that) punishing others with your code ;).
If you decide to punish others with the results of your code (binaries), you
*have* to distribute (or make available some means of getting the code) your
code to them.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html: freedom 3 - "The freedom to
improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that
the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a
precondition for this." Notice how it says "freedom"? Not "requirement"

-jf

--
In the meantime, here is your PSA:
"It's so hard to write a graphics driver that open-sourcing it would not
help."
-- Andrew Fear, Software Product Manager, NVIDIA Corporation
http://kerneltrap.org/node/7228

------=_Part_9855_8517062.1214491025574--