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: 103376,365c587e3030d8f6
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner)
Subject: Re: Win32Ada
Date: 1998/11/20
Message-ID: <732be5$dd3$1@news.nyu.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 413691605
References: <364BE12F.F38A285C@cts.com> <72inaf$8it$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <72pcj5$eg6$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.nyu.edu
X-Trace: news.nyu.edu 911520005 13731 (None) 128.122.140.194
Organization: New York University Ultracomputer Research Lab
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-11-20T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <72pcj5$eg6$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> dennison@telepath.com writes:
>Yes, but wouldn't the GPL have "something to say"? My understanding is that
>GPL'ed software cannot be taken private, or bestowed with private components.

Depends on what you mean by "private".  The GPL only imposes
limitations on what restrictions you can impose on copies of software
you choose to distribute, but it does not (and cannot) create any
obligation to distribute the software at all or to any specific person
or group of people.