No open source license (including the GPL) requires that you share your modifications -- unless you actually redistribute the software to others. If you merely use the software for your own purposes, you are free to keep modifications private under the terms of the license.
It's also important to realize that using open source is very different from contributing to open source. Despite the exaggerated claims in the AP story, that "the programming language is written in public view, available for public use and able for people to edit", the White House has not yet released any of the modifications they made to Drupal or its operating environment back to the open source community. The source code for Drupal (and the rest of the LAMP stack) is indeed available, but the modifications that were made to meet government security, scalability, and hosting requirements have not yet been shared. In my conversations with the new media team at the White House, it is clear that they are exploring this option.
Giving modifications back to the Drupal community is the next breakthrough announcement that I'll be looking for.
ホワイトハウスはソフトウェアに加えた変更やノウハウをコミュニティに還元すべきだとも指摘している (スコア:0)
変更箇所は極秘にすべきでしょ
Re: (スコア:2, 興味深い)
Timさんは書いた in コメント覧
No open source license (including the GPL) requires that you share your modifications -- unless you actually redistribute the software to others. If you merely use the software for your own purposes, you are free to keep modifications private under the terms of the license.
ソフトウェアを他人に再配布しない限り変更を分け与える必要はない。
Re:ホワイトハウスはソフトウェアに加えた変更やノウハウをコミュニティに還元すべきだとも指摘している (スコア:2, 興味深い)
ありゃ、本当だ。一応言い訳しておくと、
の文言を変なバイアスで要約(というか誤約)してしまったのです。申し訳ない。
「現在のところ変更は公開されていないが、O'reilly氏はコミュニティへのフィードバックも期待している」くらいが適当でしょうか。
言ってないことに反論するなよ