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: peltz@jaka.ece.uiuc.edu (Steve Peltz)
Subject: Re: what DOES the GPL really say?
Date: 1997/07/03
Message-ID: <5ph4g5$sbs$1@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 254361413
References: <m2soy3kebq.fsf@devo.ridgenet.net> <dewar.867497844@merv>
 <5pb8gf$j4m@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <5pbd6q$8si$1@news.nyu.edu>
Organization: NovaNET Learning, Inc.
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,gnu.misc.discuss
Date: 1997-07-03T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <5pbd6q$8si$1@news.nyu.edu>,
Richard Kenner <kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu> wrote:
>You are perhaps correct that a formal policy of not giving future
>releases to people who've redistributed in the past might violate at
>least the spirit of the GPL, but nobody has proposed doing that.  The

I'm not sure what you're saying. Restricting the rights of your customers
to pass on source code to someone else is certainly against both the
spirit and letter of the GPL. Threatening to drop them as a customer
if they do so is well within the meaning of "restrict". That you'd even
suggest that they shouldn't, much less threaten them with retaliation,
is disturbing.

Of course, your customers are certainly within their rights to refuse to
pass it on. However, that should be for their own reasons, not because
they are being coerced by you.