Re: what DOES the GPL really say?

[Samuel Mize <smize@link.com>]

Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG wrote:
> 
> Samuel Mize <smize@link.com> writes:
> 
> > However, his company refuses to distribute the sources for their
> > product.  So, since he can't distribute it appropriately, he says
> > he can't incorporate it.
> 
> > But some people go into a religious frenzy if you say you "can't"
> > incorporate GPL'd code into your product.  You CAN, they say, but
> > your company CHOOSES not to because of the distribution requirement.
> 
> That's the absolutely correct response.

It's meaningless.  He's doing a specific task assigned by a
company.  The task is "build this program, in this language,
on this platform."  He can't change the constraints on his own.
One of those constraints is to avoid GPL'd code.

And in the end, he *can't* incorporate GPL'd code into the
product because the company will fire him and strip it out
if he tries.


> People forget that, in general, they *chosse* who to work for--they
> *choose* to have children--they *choose* to drive a car, etc.
> 
> Nearly every time I hear someone say "can't" or "must" they are
> talking about something which they have actually chosen, and want to
> avoid (internal or external) criticism about their choice.

All we're saying is that, having chosen to work for an employer
who won't release the product under the GPL, he can't use legally
use GPL'd code.

If you were to say that he's working for unprincipled people and
should quit, it would at least have meaning.  Saying that he "can"
use GPL'd code does not.

> Thomas


Samuel Mize