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,faf964ea4531e6af
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 1025b4,43ae7f61992b3213
X-Google-Attributes: gid1025b4,public
From: les@MCS.COM (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: [O/T 4 cla] Re: GPL and "free" software
Date: 1999/05/04
Message-ID: <7goi9s$qvq$1@Mercury.mcs.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 474191216
References: <7fibd5$jc7$1@news2.tor.accglobal.net>
 <7gkmt5$e8t@www.inetnow.net> <372E2E00.99917C63@iiinet.dhs.org>
 <7gnb7u$hlu@www.inetnow.net>
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organi[sz]ation
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,gnu.misc.discuss
Date: 1999-05-04T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <7gnb7u$hlu@www.inetnow.net>, Ken Arromdee <arromdee@tcp.com> wrote:
>In article <372E2E00.99917C63@iiinet.dhs.org>,
>Joshua E. Rodd <jerodd@iiinet.dhs.org> wrote:
>>> >> Now, if you never redistribute any GPL'd material you don't
>>> >> need the copyright exception that the GPL gives you, so
>>> >> why does it matter if you violate this licence by exchanging
>>> >> patches?
>>> >The patch is a derived work; you are not licenced to make
>>> >copies of the copyrighted code unless you agree to the licence.
>>> Do you believe the same thing for patches to Microsoft Windows?
>>Yes.
>
>You mean you think people should be sued for distributing unauthorized patches
>to Windows, even if the patch doesn't use any Windows code?

There is a rather long tradition of user groups sharing their patches
to commercial works.  It is usually encouraged rather than contested
as long as the participants all have their own copies of the base
code.  

 Les Mikesell
   les@mcs.com