Re: what DOES the GPL really say?

[jbuck@synopsys.com (Joe Buck)]

Ronald Cole <ronald@ridgenet.net> writes:
>I like the license approach as stated in the Manifesto.  I would like to
>see the GPL's corrected to remove the incongruity with the Manifesto.

It appears that your wish is that the sentence from the Manifesto "I
consider that the golden rule requires that if I like a program I must
share it with other people who like it." be made a mandatory requirement,
that anyone in possession of a GPLed program be forced to share the
program with anyone who asks for it, no matter what the expense.

Even if RMS agreed with your interpretation of the Manifesto, this is not
possible.  The GPL, since it is not signed by the recipient, does not have
to be accepted by the recipient.  Hence the GPL says:

> You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
> signed it.  However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
> distribute the Program or its derivative works.  These actions are
> prohibited by law if you do not accept this License.

That is, the GPL cannot force a user to do anything, except in exchange
for the right to do something s/he would otherwise not have the right
to do (modify or distribute GPLed code).  Forcing people at their own
expense to incur unbounded distribution expenses simply is not a condition
that the FSF can legally impose.  Copyright law is designed to *restrict*
the making of copies: the GPL has the power to relax this condition.
It does not have the power to force people to do anything.  (Some
shrink-wrap licenses try to do this, mandating all kinds of silly things;
as a rule they aren't enforceable).
-- 
-- Joe Buck	http://www.synopsys.com/pubs/research/people/jbuck.html

Help stamp out Internet spam: see http://spam.abuse.net/spam/