From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 1025b4,1d8ab55e71d08f3d X-Google-Attributes: gid1025b4,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,1efdd369be089610 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Samuel Mize Subject: Re: what DOES the GPL really say? Date: 1997/07/01 Message-ID: <33B92FEB.158@link.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 253868374 References: <33B014E3.3343@no.such.com> <5oqp9s$7vj$1@news.nyu.edu> <33B13BF6.79C7@no.such.com> <33B2ABA6.2A44C487@link.com> <33B42D26.75A2@link.com> Organization: Hughes Training Inc. Reply-To: smize@link.com Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,gnu.misc.discuss Date: 1997-07-01T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG wrote: > > Samuel Mize writes: > > > 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. > > But he chooses to do that task and to accept such assignments. Nobody > other than himself is responsible for his being in this situation. Who said otherwise? I didn't say he couldn't refuse to do the task; I said he can't do that particular task with GPL'd code. > He cannot place his decision about who to work for above all > criticism, and then place the onus on the FSF for "not helping him". I don't recall him doing either. Criticize away. Nor did he call FSF anything bad, or claim that they were failing in some imagined duty. He just said that he can't use GPL'd code in building a source-proprietary product, which is true. It is intended specifically to be not useful for such a project. The GPL is not a result of the forces of nature, applied to code without any choice on the part of the developer. The constraint on using the code is due BOTH to his (company's) choice AND the choice of the GPL'd-code developer. The GPL developer *CHOOSES* to not allow him use of that code, for that purpose. - - - By the way, this thread did not start with a complaint about GPL'd code. It started when he complained that people say he misrepresents the GPL when he says: he can't [legally] use GPL'd code in a source-proprietary product. But that's exactly the behavior that the GPL is designed to prevent. The GPL specifically disallows it. Sam Mize