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: Ronald Cole <ronald@ridgenet.net>
Subject: Re: what DOES the GPL really say?
Date: 1997/06/27
Message-ID: <m2soy3kebq.fsf@devo.ridgenet.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 253148226
Sender: ronald@devo.ridgenet.net
References: <m2oh8ydzt8.fsf@devo.ridgenet.net> <dewar.867079112@merv>
 <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.misc.discuss
Date: 1997-06-27T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) writes:
> That may be, but the whole point is that people have spent
> considerable amount of time, usually without any compensation, to
> create the GPL'd code in question.  They are doing this because they
> want to help the public in general and don't want their work to be
> used to help somebody else do something that is against their
> philosophy.  This does not seem particularly unreasonable to me.

If that philosopy is the "Golden Rule" (Kantian) as espoused by
Stallman in his GNU Manifesto, then the GPL isn't for you.  Stallman,
for some reason, has watered its spirit down considerably for the GPL.
I'd recommend that you find some other license agreement that would
prevent someone from enhancing your code and then engaging in the
following exercise of the "letter of the law":

  From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar)
  To: dewar@gnat.com, ronald@ridgecrest.ca.us
  Cc: rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu
  Subject: Re: please set me straight...
  Date: Thu, 26 Jun 97 18:02:23 EDT

  <<By releasing 3.10 to your customers, you have "distributed" it within
  the meaning of the GPL.
  >>

  Yes, anmd the people we have distributed it to have access to the sources
  since they are distributed with the binaries. In fact the announcement
  of availability to this group specifically notes that the sources are
  available with the binaries.

  But just because we distribute the binaries to person X does not mean we
  havbe to distroibute them to person Y, that is your confusion. The only
  requirement of the GPL is that when we distribute the system to person
  X we do it right, which we are doing. 

  <<Robert, under Richard's above clarification of the GPL, I respectfully
  submit my request for the 3.10 sources, which you described as "the
  current product release", that most of your HPUX customers have
  switched to.
  >>

  We have not distributed anythying to you (Ronald COle), therefore we
  do not owe you anything under the GPL.

-- 
Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA  93556-1412
Ronald Cole <ronald@ridgenet.net>        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