From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9479 invoked by alias); 24 Aug 2010 21:33:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 9470 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Aug 2010 21:33:22 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_40 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 21:33:17 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41AEE2BAB8A; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 17:33:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id tEqfFSBtw7oN; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 17:33:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (nile.gnat.com [205.232.38.5]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11EE52BAB31; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 17:33:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4C743A8D.7010101@adacore.com> Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 21:33:00 -0000 From: Robert Dewar User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steffen Dettmer CC: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: generic query regarding GPL and licensing terms associated with gdb References: <215382.96867.qm@web112514.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4C64D224.1030001@adacore.com> <350785.50982.qm@web112515.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <53EE6DB2F971468D9FEEC38287F36875@igor> <4C65560E.2060001@adacore.com> <4C657043.3020206@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010-08/txt/msg00145.txt.bz2 Steffen Dettmer wrote: > As I understood, one of the most essential key points of GPL is > exactly that it is not possible to licence code under terms of > GPL and redistribute any derived work without offering this > derived work also under the terms of the GPL. > So I think "take GPL code, modify it [...] and then distribute it > without giving a GPL license" simply is not allowed at all. True, if by "not allowed at all" you mean "is a potential copyright infringement", I say potential here, because there are many exceptions that may exempt a specific case from being infringing. But my point was that if you do this (and are thus in a position of potential copyright infringement), this act does not cause you to lose rights to your trade secrets or copyrighted code that may have been distributed at the same time. If you are judged to have infringed, then you must cure the copyright infringement in the future. In the case of the GPL, one way you could do this *at your option* is to release all your code under the GPL, but you are never forced to do this. > > Could someone please clarify? > > oki, > > Steffen