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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,faf964ea4531e6af X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1025b4,43ae7f61992b3213 X-Google-Attributes: gid1025b4,public From: "Joshua E. Rodd" Subject: Re: GPL and "free" software Date: 1999/04/28 Message-ID: <372753FF.11F381CF@noah.dhs.org>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 471973243 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <7fibd5$jc7$1@news2.tor.accglobal.net> <1rlV2.97$jw4.11389@burlma1-snr2> <7g5cb2$bjn$1@netnews.upenn.edu> <37264DE6.7AA43E60@noah.dhs.org> <7g5qgg$n7t@www.inetnow.net> X-Accept-Language: en Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: abuse@neo.rr.com X-Trace: dustdevil.neo.rr.com 925324287 24.93.213.213 (Wed, 28 Apr 1999 14:31:27 EDT) Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online -- Northeast Ohio MIME-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 14:31:27 EDT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,gnu.misc.discuss Date: 1999-04-28T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Ken Arromdee wrote: > In article <37264DE6.7AA43E60@noah.dhs.org>, > Joshua E. Rodd wrote: > >> Also note that B does not have the right to distribute the software--even > >> his own modifications--under any license other than the GPL. That's > >> why they call the GPL a virus. > >B could distribute patches, though, for their modifications and > >distribute them under any licence they please. (A standard diff patch > >wouldn't be acceptable as it includes lines of context which would make > >the patch a derived work; an ed diff would be acceptable, however.) > Not with the FSF's interpretation which says that "user does the link" is > impermissible. "User does the patch" would be similar. Can't be. The licence is not a EULA (which is unenforceable anyway, at least until 2B goes into effect)--it doesn't limit what you can do with anything (refer to section 5 of the GPL). So you're free to mishmash GPL'd code and any other code as much as you like. A user is free to link code as he or she pleases. This is interesting with regard to the KDE/Qt situation: a user could freely link KDE with Qt, but distributing it would be unlicenced IMHO. [1] Courts will hopefully rule against the offensive provisions of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.