Re: what DOES the GPL really say?

[peltz@jaka.ece.uiuc.edu (Steve Peltz)]

In article <5pu5va$64o$1@news.nyu.edu>,
Richard Kenner <kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu> wrote:
>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.

So, although you can't legally restrict someone from distributing a modified
version of a GPLed program, you can still take any other action against them
that you can get away with if they do distribute it? Can you write a
maintenance contract that automatically terminates (without refund of any
money) if they redistribute it, or can you only choose to not renew the
contract in the future?

Perhaps when you sell an object copy, you "offer" the source to your client,
but with the understanding that if they actually take it, you'll immediately
terminate all support for it. Then, since they don't have the source, they
can't redistribute the binary.

Now, I realize that in this particular case, you will eventually distribute
the program in all its GPLed glory, and I even sympathize and agree with
your reasons for delaying release; in the case of the FSF and GCC, I even
agree that they have the legal right, since they hold the copyright on
everything in that package, and can thus distribute it under whatever
terms they wish, as well as releasing it under the GPL at such time as
they wish to. However, it doesn't seem to fit with the ideals of the
GPL and FSF.