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: 1025b4,43ae7f61992b3213 X-Google-Attributes: gid1025b4,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,faf964ea4531e6af X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: James Youngman Subject: Re: [O/T 4 cla] Re: GPL and "free" software Date: 1999/05/04 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 474500858 X-NNTP-Posting-Host: free-lunch.demon.co.uk:193.237.213.175 References: <7fibd5$jc7$1@news2.tor.accglobal.net> <7g9rh5$h5a$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <7gdv6m$1fid$1@Mercury.mcs.net> <372DCFB9.57F91727@iiinet.dhs.org> <7gkmt5$e8t@www.inetnow.net> X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 925942907 nnrp-12:29472 NO-IDENT free-lunch.demon.co.uk:193.237.213.175 Organization: Where? NNTP-Posting-Date: 4 May 1999 19:52:38 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,gnu.misc.discuss Date: 1999-05-04T19:52:38+00:00 List-Id: arromdee@www.inetnow.net (Ken Arromdee) writes: > In article <372DCFB9.57F91727@iiinet.dhs.org>, > Joshua E. Rodd wrote: > >> Now, if you never redistribute any GPL'd material you don't > >> need the copyright exception that the GPL gives you, so > >> why does it matter if you violate this licence by exchanging > >> patches? > >The patch is a derived work; you are not licenced to make > >copies of the copyrighted code unless you agree to the licence. > > Do you believe the same thing for patches to Microsoft Windows? The license which Mr Rodd is referring to is the license which allows you legally to distribute derived works. Unless you agree to the GPL, you are not allowed to distribute derived works. In the case of Windows, the license is an end-user license, not a license to distribute derived works. While the GPL seeks to provide rights, the Windows EULA seeks to remove them. The two situations are not comparable. While the Windows EULA says "by using this software....", the GPL says "By copying this software...", which is quite different. You are allowed to *use* but not *copy* GPLed software without taking on even a single one of the obligations mentioned in the GPL. -- ACTUALLY reachable as @free-lunch.demon.(whitehouse)co.uk:james+usenet