[Bf-committers] extension clause
btolputt at internode.on.net
Sun Nov 21 16:16:44 CET 2010
On 22/11/2010 2:12 AM, Martin Poirier wrote:
> Stealing a copy doesn't count as distribution.
The scenario I am talking about is not a "stolen" distribution, but one
willingly given to another party as the quote I was replying to was
about working with contracted third-party studios. In that case, the
distribution clause is invoked (it is no longer internal) and the
*third-party studio* has the right to distribute the software, as the
GPL prevents the original company from placing additional restrictions
on the GPL distribution.
To be clear, I am not talking about the initial companies developing the
extensions to Blender. I am solely (in this thread) talking about the
distribution to *third-party studios* for purposes of contracted work;
the topic of the statement I was refuting.
The FAQ point just below yours
the very "trade secret" issue that my email was targeting. Either there
are no trade secrets in the distribution given to the third party studio
(& hence the distribution is allowed to be copied freely to anyone in
accordance with the GPL) or the copy has trade secrets in the
distribution & hence is unable to give it to them. They cannot have it
both ways (as per my experience with the GPL & as mentioned in the FAQ).
More information about the Bf-committers