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=0.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 1025b4,1d8ab55e71d08f3d
X-Google-Attributes: gid1025b4,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,1efdd369be089610
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: what DOES the GPL really say?
Date: 1997/06/26
Message-ID: <dewar.867338556@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 252749860
References: <m2oh8ydzt8.fsf@devo.ridgenet.net> <dewar.867079112@merv>
 <33B014E3.3343@no.such.com> <5oqp9s$7vj$1@news.nyu.edu>
 <33B13BF6.79C7@no.such.com>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,gnu.misc.discuss
Date: 1997-06-26T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


<<It does not seem unreasonable to me either.  But David Weller's
approach, and the GNAT approach are far more helpful in that they
allow me to actually use the code, not just look at it.  Call me
(adjective) if you want for cooperating with software hoarders,
but I tilt at bigger windmills.
>>

I am not sure what you mean by Dave Weller's approach. If this
"approach" is consistent with the legal requirements of the GPL
fine. Otherwise, it is definitely NOT fine. In particular, the
viewpoint of Dave's anonymous emailers is definitely suspect.
The issue is one of distribution, it is OK to do anything internally
with GPL'ed stuff (which is analogous to the right to make your
own censored copy of a Hollywood movie). It is NOT OK to distribute
something without following the GPL rules (analogous to not being
able to distribute or sell your censored version of the movie).