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, MSGID_RANDY 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: Robert Dewar Subject: Re: [O/T 4 cla] Re: GPL and "free" software Date: 1999/05/06 Message-ID: <7gqmua$j5s$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 474520501 References: <7fibd5$jc7$1@news2.tor.accglobal.net> <7g9rh5$h5a$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <7gdv6m$1fid$1@Mercury.mcs.net> <372DCFB9.57F91727@iiinet.dhs.org> <7gkmt5$e8t@www.inetnow.net> X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x4.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.4 Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu May 06 00:15:08 1999 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,gnu.misc.discuss X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/3.01SC-SGI (X11; I; IRIX 5.3 IP22) Date: 1999-05-06T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , James Youngman wrote: > You are > allowed to *use* but not *copy* GPLed software without taking on even > a single one of the obligations mentioned in the GPL. > The GPL *never* obliges anyone to do anything. It merely sets forth a set of conditions under which you have a license to copy a copyrighted work. You meet these conditions, and you may make and distribute copies, but the GPL never obliges you to make or distribute copies. It also does not forbid anything. For example, suppose you want to include a GPL'ed program in your proprietary licensed work. Well you need the copyright holder's permission to do it. You have the GPL, but that does not license this particular usage. It doesn't forbid it, it just does not permit it, there is a big difference. It is the copyright that forbids the use you have in mind unless you get an appropriate license. There is of course legally nothing to stop you asking for permission, and nothing to stop the copyright holder from granting it. Suppose you wanted to put together a compiler using XYZ's proprietary front end and the gcc backend. Well to distribute this derived work, you need the permission of the Free Software Foundation. Very probably they will refuse, as is their right as the copyright holder. But they could give you special permission, and then you could distribute your hybrid program as a proprietary program without violating the GPL, it is just that you would not be relying on the GPL for your right to distribute. In fact this is far from a theoretical situation, it is quite fine legally for someone to distribute GPL'ed software for price $x, possibly $0, and charge you a bundle for a separate license that allows you to use the same software in a proprietary context. Indeed it is my understanding (and I apologize in advance if this is an incorrect understanding) that Cygwin is distributed under EXACTLY this split model. One may argue over whether such a distribution model is a good idea (at ACT we prefer a completely clean situation with no such dual licensing, which is why we use the modified GPL for runtime stuff), but it is absolutely 100% consistent with the GPL. Indeed I have heard people argue that it is appropriate, because it gives full access to those writing free software, and penalizes those writing proprietary software, which to some people seems an appropriate situation :-) Robert Dewar Ada Core Technologies -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own