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: Isaac@yellow.submarine.pla (Isaac) Subject: Re: what DOES the GPL really say? Date: 1997/07/23 Message-ID: <5r473p$kpa@camel2.mindspring.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 258280824 References: <5ph4g5$sbs$1@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <5r3dfk$891@camel4.mindspring.com> <5r40u6$qun$1@Venus.mcs.net> Organization: Yellow Brick Road Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,gnu.misc.discuss Date: 1997-07-23T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <5r40u6$qun$1@Venus.mcs.net>, Leslie Mikesell wrote: >In article <5r3madfk$891@camel4.mindspring.com>, >Isaac wrote: > >>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? > The GPL is reasonable with respect to not forcing people to become full time distributors just because they give their buds some code. You of course are using the word 'reasonable' in another context. >>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? > Maybe not, but the GPL and I agree on this point. >Perhaps I missed something. Could you point out the portion of the >GPL that distinguishes between production releases and other code? > Sigh. The GPL of course makes no such distinction. The difference is strictly in the motivation of the people who get the non production code. It is easy to postulate a non selfish, non hoarding reason for people not to re-distribute possibly buggy code in either binary or source fashion. These people might simply agree that limited distribution beta testing is a good thing. I myself feel this way. The poster I was responding to appeared to believe this as well. Obviously this motivation would not apply to production code. If none of the current holders want to re-distribute the code, the only possible point of contention with respect to the GPL is whether they are being coerced. There are other means of motivating people other than coercing or restricting them. Can you think of any? Isaac (who just hates rhetorical questions)