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: 103376,1efdd369be089610
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 1025b4,1d8ab55e71d08f3d
X-Google-Attributes: gid1025b4,public
From: kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner)
Subject: Re: what DOES the GPL really say?
Date: 1997/07/04
Message-ID: <5pim4l$5m3$1@news.nyu.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 254522039
References: <5pb8gf$j4m@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <5pbd6q$8si$1@news.nyu.edu>
 <5ph4g5$sbs$1@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
Organization: New York University Ultracomputer Research Lab
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,gnu.misc.discuss
Date: 1997-07-04T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <5ph4g5$sbs$1@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> peltz@jaka.ece.uiuc.edu (Steve Peltz) writes:
>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".

You seem to have missed the "nobody has proposed doing that" above.

>That you'd even suggest that they shouldn't,

There's absolutely nothing wrong with pointing out that it's harmful
to the GNAT community for pre-releases to be widely distributed.  The
FSF itself (and Richard Stallman personally) has an extremely strong
similar view about pre-releases of GCC.