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: 1997/07/08
Message-ID: <5ptv53$4h4$1@news.nyu.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 255562337
References: <5pmg6e$nai$1@Venus.mcs.net> <5pmiuv$2f1@camel4.mindspring.com>
 <5pn2h2$sjg$1@Venus.mcs.net>
Organization: New York University Ultracomputer Research Lab
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,gnu.misc.discuss
Date: 1997-07-08T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <5pn2h2$sjg$1@Venus.mcs.net> les@MCS.COM (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
>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 difference is that the redistribution is being forgone
*voluntarily*, not by some requirement.  That's a very big difference.