[exim-dev] [Bug 1536] GPL does not cover modifications that …

Startseite
Nachricht löschen
Nachricht beantworten
Autor: Phil Pennock
Datum:  
To: exim-dev
Betreff: [exim-dev] [Bug 1536] GPL does not cover modifications that aren't "distributed"
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1536

Phil Pennock <pdp@???> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
         Resolution|WONTFIX                     |





--- Comment #5 from Phil Pennock <pdp@???> 2014-11-01 08:35:32 ---
To be compliant with the GPL, if the binaries are running on machines not owned
by the SaaS provider, then the source-code for those binaries needs to be made
available to those same customers, without restrictions other than the GPL.
This does not mean that the changes need to be made directly available to
anyone else.

The most sensible way forward is probably to get the key moved out of the
source-tree into a file read from the filesystem and then contribute the
changes in a tracking issue in this bug-tracker. There's no need for the Exim
Maintainers to merge the patch, as long as the running code is available.
Embedding keys which must be secret into GPL code is highly unwise and leads to
scenarios where only lawyers win, especially since there's an ongoing
requirement to provide the source for the binaries which have already been made
available.

Generally speaking, nobody has a right to be able to debug arbitrary other
systems on the Internet and as long as a customer of the GPL'd product has a
way to debug and change the code, the obligations are met in my opinion. It's
also perfectly reasonable for a support contract to be automatically terminated
should a customer do so.

Attempts to redefine the meaning of a legal term are another thing which only
leave lawyers richer. As someone who is currently awaiting a personal bill
from a corporate law attorney, I have _no_ desire to get dragged into that if I
don't have to, especially for an open source project which doesn't make me
money to recoup those legal costs, so if I do find that I have to go that route
then I shall become rather grumpy.

So please lets get this resolved reasonably. Mike H: your tone is not
reasonable and not conducive to getting this resolved smoothly. Please don't
make demands in projects where you are not a copyright holder. Thank you.


--
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.exim.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email