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: 1025b4,1d8ab55e71d08f3d X-Google-Attributes: gid1025b4,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,1efdd369be089610 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: les@MCS.COM (Leslie Mikesell) Subject: Re: what DOES the GPL really say? Date: 1997/07/22 Message-ID: <5r40u6$qun$1@Venus.mcs.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 258252235 References: <5ph4g5$sbs$1@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <5r3dfk$891@camel4.mindspring.com> Organization: /usr/lib/news/organi[sz]ation Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,gnu.misc.discuss Date: 1997-07-22T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <5r3dfk$891@camel4.mindspring.com>, Isaac wrote: >I think everyone understands your position, but I think it has unpalatable >consequences. You're position leads to the conclusion that if I give GPL'd >code to someone, I have to be personally responsible for making sure >that everyone on earth who wants it gets it. Nobody said that. You are required to allow unrestricted redistribution, not to promote it. However, I don't see how distributing only to people who agree not to redistribute can be reconciled with that requirement. >This is an unreasonable >burden in my opinion. This would be enough to make sure no one in their >right mind distributed. Has anyone accused the GPL of being reasonable? >Even if I were to accept your definition of hoarding (and it does sound >reasonable), I think any position that requires me to develop the >above distribution system is unreasonable. Does that matter? >If the 3.10 is a production release, and ACT's customers are in any way >obligated not to re-distribute it, I agree that that is a violation of the >GPL. Perhaps I missed something. Could you point out the portion of the GPL that distinguishes between production releases and other code? Les Mikesell les@mcs.com