Re: what DOES the GPL really say?

[kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner)]

In article <5ptv7r$4e2$1@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> peltz@jaka.ece.uiuc.edu (Steve Peltz) writes:
>Nobody has proposed a FORMAL policy. There's a strong implication in
>several earlier responses indicating that there is an informal policy of
>doing just that: "we don't have to do business with people who distribute
>it ... wink wink". I don't object to ASKING people to not distribute it,
>but threatening them with retaliation if they do seems to be violating
>the letter and the spirit of the GPL.

Why do you consider not distributing things to them in the future to
be "retaliation"?  That's a biased view of the situation.  The people
who receive GCC snapshots are those who are helping in the development
process.  They are not receiving the snapshots as some sort of
"reward" or "prize", but instead to assist in the development effort.

If their actions, be they technical or non-technical, indicate they no
longer want to be part of that effort, they will no longer be.

>I'd always thought that if I looked for it, I could get the absolutely
>latest, untested, broken version of GCC, and that if I used it it would
>probably not work. I don't see why that's any worse than having a bug
>that I try to fix, distribute patches to other people having the problem,
>and then find out that I fixed it the wrong way, or in a way that is
>going to cause problems with later "official" patches or updates.

It is very close to the same.  That's why both are activities that
are discouraged.  It's very important for there to be a clear set of
"official" and tested sources.  That way, there's never a confusion
in the user community over what to use.