[Epic 4G General] bitbang3r:
One comment on something that was said in the thread that got closed. A few posters there complained about charging for something that's GPL'ed. Actually, it's totally, unambiguously, and 100% legal to charge for things that are GPL'ed. It's also totally, unambiguously, and 100% legal for anyone who acquires a copy of it to turn around and redistribute it -- for free, or for money.

The GPL2 requires that Schiz license his changes under the same terms. So, anybody who donates and downloads the beta release acquires a license to use it under the GPL2. Likewise, the GPL2 requires that Schiz make the source available to those specific users. The GPL2 does NOT require that Schiz bend over backwards to immediately make his changes instantly available for free to the general public. Or ever make them available for free to the general public at all. Officially, you don't become a licensee of Schiz' changes until you either a) donate, and download it from him, or b) he posts it publicly and you download it from wherever he puts it. HOWEVER, the GPL2 also entitles anyone who acquires a copy of Schiz's changes to redistribute them independently of Schiz.

That's the check and balance. If 10 users feel poor/stingy and want to split the cost of a donation so one can grab it and give copies to everyone else, it's 100% legit and legal under the GPL. It would be equally legal for Schiz to get mad and refuse to answer questions from anyone he caught doing that, because the GPL only conveys the right to obtain the source and redistribute it. The GPL conveys no right to tech support. The fact that something is legal doesn't necessarily mean others have to regard it as good and morally acceptable. You have every right to regard someone as an immoral asshole for doing something that's nevertheless completely legal. Big corporations do things that are technically legal every day, and get excoriated for it by Slashdot users on a regular basis ;)

Suppose I use GPL'ed source to develop an internal app used by a major corporation. There's NO requirement that the source to that internal app ever be made available to anyone outside the company, since only the company is the licensee of the modified code. The only time the source has to be made available to anyone outside the company is if the app ends up getting used in an app used by the company's own customers. That's where lots of big companies get into trouble... they'll use GPL'ed code for years for internal vertical-market apps, then slip it into a publicly-released client app without realizing the licensing implications of doing so until it's too late.

Giving another example, it would be absolutely 100% legal for Tivo to charge customers $100 to upgrade to a newer version of their software. However, under GPL2, it would be 100% legal for anyone who paid $100 for it to redistribute it to others -- Tivo-owning or not. Where the GPL2 and GPL3 differ is that under the GPL2, it's entirely legal for Tivo to respond by making their hardware refuse to allow the upgrade unless you also present it with a valid license code. However, even in the case of the GPL3, the intent of the GPL isn't necessarily to enable anyone to take Tivo's software and build his own Tivo from scratch -- it's to guarantee Tivo owners the freedom to hack and modify their own Tivo to better meet their own individual needs and improve it beyond what Tivo itself is willing/able to do.

The point is that the GPL doesn't quite mean what many people believe it does, and in some contexts the distinction between GPL2 and GPL3 are very important. Android is actually Apache-licensed, but because it's inextricably bundled with Linux, it's effectively governed by the GPL2 as well (for the most part).