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 X-Google-Thread: f65d0,bd4d2fccdf730b16 X-Google-Attributes: gidf65d0,public From: Ronald Cole Subject: Re: what DOES the GPL really say? Date: 1997/06/29 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 253498211 Sender: ronald@devo.ridgenet.net References: <33B014E3.3343@no.such.com> <5oqp9s$7vj$1@news.nyu.edu> Organization: RidgeNet - SLIP/PPP Internet, Ridgecrest, CA. (760) 371-3501 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,gnu.gcc,gnu.misc.discuss Date: 1997-06-29T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: > complaint, the opposite of the usual one). Like many people, Ronald > started this thread under the incorrect impression that the GPL forces > you to distribute code if you make modifications. Not exactly true. My complaint is that once you distribute to person-A, the GPL permits you to say "no" to requests from persons-B, -C, -D, ad nausium. Have you forgotten what it was Stallman wrote to both of us? I'll repeat it, since it bears repeating: Thus, there's no requirement to make a public announcement of a source release to accompany the binary release, but you may have to provide the sources to any number of people other than those who got the binary directly from you, if they request it. Clearly, if this is Stallman's intention, he failed to embody it within the GPL. I hope I can convince Richard to remedy this. -- Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA 93556-1412 Ronald Cole Phone: (760) 499-9142 President, CEO Fax: (760) 499-9152 My PGP fingerprint: E9 A8 E3 68 61 88 EF 43 56 2B CE 3E E9 8F 3F 2B