Re: "proprietary", was Re: ada on linux

["Jeff Creem" <jcreem@atetola.mv.com>]

> >... those associated with manufacture of proprietary software.
> >Those people would of course prefer a BSD like license to
> >the GPL license, because then they can use the software in
> >their proprietary products.
>   Do you know as fact that all people who object to the GPL would
> prefer the BSD like license?  Do you know as fact that's because then
> they would be able to use the software in their proprietary products?
> Or are you just guessing that anyone who disagrees with the OSF hype
> does so solely because it prevents them from thievery?

I know in cases I have been concerned about, I have had to stay away
from libraries that are pure GPL (not talking about GNAT here) for my
projects
since there are projects where portions of the source code are classified
(by
the government).  We certainly give all of the source the the government and
they
in turn are free to give it to whomever they determine has the clearence and
need to
know. But, the clause in the GPL that says all third parties must have all
the licence rights
has always meant to me (and I am not a lawyer and I could be very wong here)
that if
some third party approached the company and said that they wanted a copy
of program X from us that we would have to give it to them (but we could
charge a fee)..

Perhaps this is just another misconception..A while back a sent e-mail to
FSF asking specific
questions about  the GPL in this and other areas...I got some answers but
the rest of the
reply said these are hard questions and I got no answers...

We do of course have our own legal department that could look at these (and
has) but
I am often concerned that they give me answers for what the believe they can
get
away with based on the licenses and not what the original intent of the
license is. (again
another personal belief that is probably wong).


Jeff