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: 1997/07/23
Message-ID: <dewar.869670136@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 258557577
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> <m2en8ttgpr.fsf@devo.ridgenet.net>
 <dewar.869494262@merv> <m2u3hof1w3.fsf@devo.ridgenet.net>
 <5r3dfk$891@camel4.mindspring.com>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,gnu.misc.discuss
Date: 1997-07-23T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Isaac said

<<If the 3.10 is a production release, and ACT's customers are in any way
obligated not to re-distribute it, I agree that that is a violation of the
GPL.
>>

Please note, that despite the possible implication of the above statement,
it is absolutely the case that ACT never violates either the spirit or
the letter of the GPL. 

As Ronald's posts have made clear, he thought the GPL made guarantees about
required distribution that simply (a) are not present, (b) are definitely
not intended to be present and (c) which would be undesirable if they
were present, since, as Isaac notes, they would discourage distribution
of free software.

Now Ronald has decided that he doesn't like the whole GPL approach. Fine,
he is free to (a) define some alternative approach and (b) distribute
his software using that approach.