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: 1025b4,1d8ab55e71d08f3d
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: 1997/07/14
Message-ID: <dewar.868936643@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 256925361
References: <5ph4g5$sbs$1@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <5pim4l$5m3$1@news.nyu.edu>
 <5ptv7r$4e2$1@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <5pu5va$64o$1@news.nyu.edu>
 <5qdof6$iav$1@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,gnu.misc.discuss
Date: 1997-07-14T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Steve Peltz says

<<Now, I realize that in this particular case, you will eventually distribute
the program in all its GPLed glory, and I even sympathize and agree with
your reasons for delaying release; in the case of the FSF and GCC, I even
agree that they have the legal right, since they hold the copyright on
everything in that package, and can thus distribute it under whatever
terms they wish, as well as releasing it under the GPL at such time as
they wish to. However, it doesn't seem to fit with the ideals of the
GPL and FSF.
>>


The GPL is a legal contract. One cannot easily enforce ideals with a contract,
and ultimately the GPL does not guarantee anyones ideals or morals. It does
make a very definite guarantee that if you get a given object you can get
the corresponding source.

You worry a lot about future versions, but notice there is nothing in the
GPL that obliges the author to stick with the GPL in future versions. It
is quite in accord with the terms of this license for the author to offer
version 1 of the system under the GPL, and then make vesion 2 entirely
propriatery -- the author does not surrender this right by using the GPL.
Whether that correspondes with your perception of ideals, who knows?

In practice, the GPL can be used in a wide variety of manners, subject to
the basic guarantee of not ending up with a program where you cannot
redistribute or cannot obtain sources.

As I often have pointed out, there is no requirement whatsoever that we
do "eventually distribute the program .... [publicly]". The GPL in no
way suggests that we should, it is something we choose to do for reasons
other than GPL requirements.

P.S. It is interesting that in the case of GNAT, the option of taking
future versions private rests with the original copyright holder, NYU,
and the current copyright holder, FSF. Neither is likely to excercise
this right, and it would not mean much if they did, since we would
continue to develop the current version, and continue to make it publicly
available!

P.P.S. 3.10 is coming along quite nicely, and we are working towards an
early general release (for one thing, we have major improvements planned
for post 3.10, and we want to get 3.10 out before we introduce any more
earthquakes :-)

Robert Dewar
Ada Core Technologies