I'm missing a (certain) point in this discussion, and I'd like to explain my point of view.
Oliver Georgi wrote:Normally that's the way the GPL is working.
But - you do not pack a new product. If you change such small piece of code it's enough to post it here. You do not need to publish such code change - but the code is GPL too.
It's difficult to describe.
Did you check the FAQ in copyright section? And here is everything regarding the GPL:
.....
Oliver
It's difficult to describe. you name it...
I think so too, because this issue is ‘discussed’ all the time without answering core questions…
I think it’s superfluous to discuss further to respect GPL in terms of not removing Copyright from backend or about people take the credit for what s.o. else has done.
But I think as quoted above,
It's difficult to describe and it’s difficult to get an answer, if someone does not change original PHPWCMS source, but add functionality to it.
Provided
a) I do NOT pack a NEW (CMS) product, but enhance PHPWCMS with functions, which are a complete separate code and no Mod's to the original code.
b), this additional code is 'my work', for what I get paid for.
c), the Copyright is where it should belong and I do not get paid for passing over PHPWCMS to my customer.
Under such circumstances my code is – to my understanding – first of all my property and my work.
But that’s not the whole issue!
This code is an extension to PHPWCMS and because it will not run stand alone. Under GPL rules this code now
MUST be freely published *) – as I understand this discussion,
even though this is ‘commissioned work’ and my/the customer expects to be the ‘owner’ of this paid work (functionality) and the only one who gain benefit out of this.
I think this is the core question to professional developers, because I really cannot see that any customer want to spread his technological advantages to public for free, bearing in mind that he paid for.
Under such provisions and constraints, a forced ‘free give away’ of commissioned work always will result in attempts such as ‘pseudo’ rebranding and neglecting GPL.
To my understanding and experience a real licensing concept may resolve this and in addition would help the author of GPL software to gain a small profit as well.
Let’s say you pay EUR 100,- for each license you ‘distribute’! Is anyone trying to tell me, that such ‘peanuts’ will stop a customer from ordering a website? If such an amount is subject to ridiculous discussions, ones should change business soon.
Would be pleased to get Oliver’s point of view.
*) Btw. I never saw any WebSite based on any CMS and GPL Software, providing links to allow to download the whole source (+ all additions and changes made) for free. Did I miss the point, or did I surf the wrong web over the years? Besides of this, I personally never would allow to anyone to read the source, because of security reasons! If I would publish a website based on any of those GPL (CMS) packages, I sure would change enough code, not to be an easy target to ‘funny guys’. For me - not - disclosing source is not a subject to GPL but a subject to security at first, and subject to 'claim for possession' by customers secondly!