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: 1025b4,1d8ab55e71d08f3d
X-Google-Attributes: gid1025b4,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,1efdd369be089610
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner)
Subject: Re: what DOES the GPL really say?
Date: 1997/06/26
Message-ID: <5ourai$nlo$1@news.nyu.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 252827699
References: <33B014E3.3343@no.such.com> <5oqp9s$7vj$1@news.nyu.edu>
 <33B13BF6.79C7@no.such.com>
Organization: New York University Ultracomputer Research Lab
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,gnu.misc.discuss
Date: 1997-06-26T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <33B13BF6.79C7@no.such.com> Wes Groleau <no.such.user@no.such.com> writes:
>However, that is not what people have been telling me.  Several times
>I have been reprimanded for saying I cannot incorporate a particular
>bit of code due to the GPL.

That may be correct.  It depends what you plan *to do* with the work
in question.  There's no restriction on actually creating derived work
(they're wrong about that), but the resulting work cannot be
distributed to anybody.  Since that's likely what the intent was,
they are correct in that case.