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=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, PP_MIME_FAKE_ASCII_TEXT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII X-Google-Thread: 1025b4,1d8ab55e71d08f3d X-Google-Attributes: gid1025b4,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,1efdd369be089610 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: David Kastrup Subject: Re: what DOES the GPL really say? Date: 1997/07/24 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 258511091 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> <5r3dfk$891@camel4.mindspring.com> Organization: Institut fuer Neuroinformatik, Ruhr-Universitaet Bochum, Germany Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,gnu.misc.discuss Date: 1997-07-24T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Ronald Cole writes: > Isaac@yellow.submarine.pla (Isaac) writes: > > You're position leads to the conclusion that if I give GPL'd > > code to someone, I have to be personally responsible for making sure > > that everyone on earth who wants it gets it. > > Not at all! Yes, everyone on earth who wants it should be able to get > it, but that doesn't necessarily mean from you... That's what "responsible" means. Responsibility for something does not mean that I have to personally do it. > Unless of course > you are hoarding, in which case they can only get it from you. I > can't think of a better way to make such persons reevaluate their > behavior with respect to the GNU Manifesto. I can't think of anything offhand that would at once ascertain the "availability" of GPLed code better than the current version, be legally binding, *and* encourage people to put things under the GPL. Don't misunderstand the GPL: it is a user licence. It just defines the rights and conditions for somebody *getting* that piece of software. The legal *owner* of the software can do anything with it, including releasing the same or derived versions of the software only commercially and refusing to further distribute it. Even if the GPL wanted to regulate the owner of the software, it hardly could. The best you can do is sue for unfair advertising (or what it's called) if somebody announces GPL software for getting popular or harming competition and does not provide it. But this is not a matter regulated by the GPL, and cannot be. Actually, you have to show this is intentional, and this is pretty hard. Which is why few bother to persecute the hosts of ghost announcements for products never coming up, or at vastly later times, some big players with big legal departments issue in order to harm their competetion. -- David Kastrup Phone: +49-234-700-5570 Email: dak@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de Fax: +49-234-709-4209 Institut f�r Neuroinformatik, Universit�tsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany