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

[tmoran@bix.com]

>I will repeat what I said earlier, I think there is a
>significant and important distinction between the position
>that you cannot redistribute under any circumstances, and
>the position that you can freely redistribute what you
>received!
  I fully agree.  How frequently does either position actually occur?  I
don't know of anybody who sells software with the requirement that you
cannot redistribute under any circumstances.  Even Microsoft allows
retailers and system vendors to redistribute their software.  The
cirumstances, of course, include paying Microsoft royalties.
  It's true that I understand the GPL to say that you cannot "freely"
redistribute what you received.  As I (mis?) understand it, if you
redistribute, there are certain requirements, ie, you are not free to do
whatever you want.  Perhaps the restriction that you must include a sentence
pointing to where the source can be found is not an onerous one in the usual
case, but it *is* a restriction on "freely".
  To construct a thought experiment, suppose you write a study guide for
the SAT.  To let your readers test themselves, you include on a CDROM the
binary of a GPL'ed SAT simulation program.  As I understand it, you
haven't fulfilled the requirements.  But if you include the source code,
or even a pointer to it, some people are going to look at the source code,
find out the questions and their correct answers, and then "ace" the
simulated test.  Now it may be that someone who does such a thing with a
practice SAT test is a fool.  Suppose we change the scenario slightly, and
have the test be one for an on-line college course.  Now the cheater will
get credit for something he does not in fact know, and perhaps be hired in
some position where an ignorant person can do significant damage.  In the
absence of the "source availability" requirement, you could have avoided this.
If you used a non-GPL program, its author almost surely would be happy to
let you redistribute, though he might want a small royalty per CDROM.
  If you offer a product that is, or uses, GPLed software, are you
effectively required to charge for support?  If you don't, and some
users have made "just a little improvement", you face a heck of a lot
of support time tracking down their "just a little mistake"s.