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: les@MCS.COM (Leslie Mikesell) Subject: Re: what DOES the GPL really say? Date: 1997/07/05 Message-ID: <5pn2h2$sjg$1@Venus.mcs.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 254910189 References: <5pb8gf$j4m@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <5pim4l$5m3$1@news.nyu.edu> <5pmg6e$nai$1@Venus.mcs.net> <5pmiuv$2f1@camel4.mindspring.com> Organization: /usr/lib/news/organi[sz]ation Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,gnu.misc.discuss Date: 1997-07-05T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <5pmiuv$2f1@camel4.mindspring.com>, wrote: >In article <5pmg6e$nai$1@Venus.mcs.net>, Leslie Mikesell wrote: >>Hmmm, so if it is in your best interest you can ignore the GPL mandate >>to allow unlimited redistribution if you distribute at all? Why doesn't >>this philosophy apply to everyone else? >> > >The GPL "mandates" unlimited redistribution in the sense that anyone who >gets GPL'd code can redistribute it. But it does not require anyone to >make sure that everyone on earth and beyond has a copy. (Well unless >you use one of those goofy options to making the source immediately >available). > >This issue has been hashed out many times in this thread. You couldn't >possibly have missed it. No, but usually the discussion is in the context of whether you have to distribute changes at all, which of course is not required. However this time the issue seems to be about distributing among a small circle of friends with at least an implicit agreement that none will distribute additional copies. I fail to see any philosophical difference between this and selling copies with a contractual requirement not to redistribute. Les Mikesell les@mcs.com