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=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,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: user@yellow.submarine.pla ()
Subject: Re: what DOES the GPL really say?
Date: 1997/07/06
Message-ID: <5pn64f$5vq@camel1.mindspring.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 254918320
References: <5pb8gf$j4m@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <5pim4l$5m3$1@news.nyu.edu>
 <5pmg6e$nai$1@Venus.mcs.net> <5pmiuv$2f1@camel4.mindspring.com>
 <5pn2h2$sjg$1@Venus.mcs.net>
Organization: Yellow Brick Road
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,gnu.misc.discuss
Date: 1997-07-06T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <5pn2h2$sjg$1@Venus.mcs.net>, Leslie Mikesell wrote:
>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. 
>

The philosophical difference is in whether the circle of friends are
electing not to redistribute, or whether they have been coerced.  It
may be impossible for an outsider to know until we see the consequences 
of breaking the agreement.  It is easy to imagine situations where 
those with the code in their hands see a benefit to not redistributing
the code without any collusion or coercion from the original
distributor.  

'Course none of this gets an outside the code he wants.  In this sense
there is no difference.  I wouldn't call this philosophical though...

Isaac