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: 103376,1efdd369be089610
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 1025b4,1d8ab55e71d08f3d
X-Google-Attributes: gid1025b4,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: what DOES the GPL really say?
Date: 1997/09/07
Message-ID: <dewar.873631804@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 270494778
References: <5ph4g5$sbs$1@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
 <hjb-3008970231180001@chaos.dial.idiom.com>
 <5uhe6s$g8q@taurus.ftl.telematics.com> <5uhjr4$i2o@idiom.com>
 <5uirfo$lt2@taurus.ftl.telematics.com> <5ukmmp$kc9@idiom.com>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,gnu.misc.discuss
Date: 1997-09-07T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Hwa-Jin Bae said

<<I think this was the source of confusion.  I have an earlier
release (1.0) and it did not have code on CD-ROM, nor did it
have optional boxes to click on to install the code.  I suppose
many people have made noise about this issue and now we have
a newer release that has source code on the CD-ROM that can
optionally be installed. (1.0.1) In any case, I'm glad that
WRS is shipping the source code now.>>

It sounds like you were under the misconception that the souce code
must be shipped together with the object code for GPL'ed software.
This is not the case. If you receive GPL'ed software, then source
must be available, but not necessarily with the object distribution.

Whoever gives you the program has the responsibility of letting you
know how to get the sources. If you pass on GPL'ed software you need
to take responsibility for making sure that the recipient knows where
the sources are. For instance, when I make GNAT available to my
students in a special distribution for them that is conveniently
set up, I do not include the sources, but I tell them where the
sources can be found.

The original manufacturer is responsible only for providing this information
to those to whom they distribute the original program. The GPL comes with
rights and responsibilities. The right is to further distribute the program,
the responsibility is to distribute it in a manner that is consistent with
the requirements of the GPL. If you find this onerous, then no one is forcing
you to further distribute the program, so don't do it!

In this case, I don't know if you got the code from the manufacturer or not.
If so, you should have contacted the manufacturer, and you would have found
that indeed you could obtain the sources (I do not know if they were charging
for this service or not at the time, as I have mentioned before, it is fine
to charge for distribution of souces, providing the charge is reasonable).

<<I have no more complaints>>

It sounds like you never did have a legitimate complaint, and certainly
your conclusion that no manufacturers take the GPL seriously was entirely
unwarranted. You should be careful about accusing people of violating
contracts without a little more research on your part!