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: 103376,a2c7f6cbdb72aa16 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: tmoran@bix.com Subject: Re: "proprietary", was Re: ada on linux Date: 2000/05/28 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 628161222 References: <8gppqa$og7$1@nnrp1.deja.com> X-Complaints-To: abuse@pacbell.net X-Trace: news.pacbell.net 959492490 206.170.24.1 (Sat, 27 May 2000 22:41:30 PDT) Organization: SBC Internet Services NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 22:41:30 PDT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-05-28T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: >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.