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: 1025b4,43ae7f61992b3213 X-Google-Attributes: gid1025b4,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,faf964ea4531e6af X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: owinebar@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Lynn Winebarger) Subject: Re: GPL and "free" software Date: 1999/04/28 Message-ID: <7g7tlc$j5g$1@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 472025290 References: <7fibd5$jc7$1@news2.tor.accglobal.net> <7g5qgg$n7t@www.inetnow.net> <372753FF.11F381CF@noah.dhs.org> <7g7ro3$q91@www.inetnow.net> Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,gnu.misc.discuss Date: 1999-04-28T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <7g7ro3$q91@www.inetnow.net>, Ken Arromdee wrote: >In article <372753FF.11F381CF@noah.dhs.org>, >Joshua E. Rodd wrote: >>> >B could distribute patches, though, for their modifications and >>> >distribute them under any licence they please. (A standard diff patch >>> >wouldn't be acceptable as it includes lines of context which would make >>> >the patch a derived work; an ed diff would be acceptable, however.) >>> Not with the FSF's interpretation which says that "user does the link" is >>> impermissible. "User does the patch" would be similar. >>Can't be. The licence is not a EULA (which is unenforceable anyway, >>at least until 2B goes into effect)--it doesn't limit what you can do >>with anything (refer to section 5 of the GPL). So you're free to >>mishmash GPL'd code and any other code as much as you like. > >According to the FSF, you might be able to do that, but nobody would be >allowed to give you code with a stricter license, whose use is to be >mishmashed together with GPL code. If someone does that, that is considered >a disguised way of distributing the combination, and since distributing the >combination is not allowed, neither is distributing the component. > >No, I don't believe it either, but that's the way it's done. Well, I think it would be legal for a company to distribute patches (under a stricter license even), as long as they did not also distribute the original work. Not that I would want to encourage that behaviour. Lynn