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: kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) Subject: Re: what DOES the GPL really say? Date: 1997/08/21 Message-ID: <5tg9or$msl$1@news.nyu.edu>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 265626130 References: <33F13EBC.373@ix.netcom.com> Organization: New York University Ultracomputer Research Lab Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,gnu.misc.discuss Date: 1997-08-21T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article Ronald Cole writes: >> Irrelevant. No such threat has ever been made. > >and on 7/1/97, he posted this: > > "To clarify here, we tell customers that we think it is in the best > interests of GNAT if prereleases and wavefronts are not released > generally (for all the reasons I have previously stated), but that is > absolutely right, we cannot require it." > >A strange statement to make for a man who claims to strictly follow >the GPL both in letter *and in spirit*. Can you tell me how one can >"discourage free distribution" without restricting free distribution >in some manner? Discouraging something is not *restricting* it, at least in the sense to which a legal document (like the GPL) means. I've said this before, but the analogy is the difference between things that are considered rude by society and those that are considered illegal. The first set is always a significant superset of the latter.