🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <CnJqyE.18A@srgenprp.sr.hp.com>,
Chuck Corley <chuckc@sr.hp.com> wrote:
>
>        Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that GNU requires the
>software company to give you the source code for a small media
>distribution fee if you buy their GNU-based product.  You could then
>build it yourself and distrubute it if you wanted.  But I didn't think
>you were automatically allowed to distrubute the binaries that the
>software company had built.
>
>	Does this sound close to being right?
>

Almost, but not quite. 

You *are* allowed to redistribute the binaries as well as the source.
Although I've gotten several unofficial comments, I still have not
gotten an reply from Analog with their official policy - but what 
I have been *told* (from an Analog customer) is that they don't 
actually *sell* the COMPILER - they sell a service ( support, 
consulting, etc. ) which includes documentation and giving you 
a copy of the binaries. 

No one from Analog has *ever* ( as far as I know ) made any official 
claims that would restrict distribution of the compiler - binaries OR 
source. They just have NOT made it very clear HOW you can get a copy
( either source or binaries ) for a "modest" copying fee, rather 
than as part of a $750 service. ( However, various people, connected 
and unconnected to Analog, have made UNOFFICIAL statements with various 
disclaimers ( stating firmly that it IS unofficial, or using words 
like "I think" or "I believe" ) that do *seem* to be contrary to 
the GPL. Since a couple of people may have misread my previous 
question as an accusation, I want to stress: I'm ASKING - 
(1) What *ARE* Analog's policies ?, and (2) Are those policies 
in accord with the GPL ?  ) 

If someone who already has this product wants to make it available 
to be put on an FTP site for redistribution, we can make the whole
argument moot.  'Till then, I'm still waiting for an official reply. 


[ followups directed to gnu.misc.discuss ] 

- Steve Majewski       (804-982-0831)      <sdm7g@Virginia.EDU>
- UVA Department of Molecular Physiology and Biological Physics


Below is a clarification of the GPL terms that was posted by rms 
to gnu.misc.discuss. 

Article: 14978 of gnu.misc.discuss
Xref: murdoch gnu.misc.discuss:14978
From: rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Richard Stallman)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Distributing binaries without source
Date: 30 Mar 1994 00:27:26 -0500
Organization: GNUs Not Usenet
Lines: 42
Sender: daemon@cis.ohio-state.edu
Distribution: gnu
Message-ID: <9403300527.AA02765@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
X-Status: 
Status: OR

Someone forwarded to the FSF part of a discussion on this group about
requesting sources for a GNU program distributed only as binaries.

The GPL permits distributing binaries without sources.  However, the
binaries have to come with a *written offer* to provide source code
later on request (for up to three years after when that particular
copy of the binaries was distributed by them).

The fee charged for distributing sources requested in this way can be
enough to cover the direct costs of distributing the sources, but no
more.  (This is the only case where the GPL doesn't allow a profit on
distribution.)

This offer must be open to *anyone*--it may not be restricted
only to people who have obtained the binaries from that distributor.

The reason we wrote the GPL that way is that the person who gets the
binaries directly is allowed to redistribute them.  Someone who gets
the binaries indirectly is entitled to have access to the source code.
And the only way he can rely on access to source is if the original
binary-only distributor makes them available to everyone.

If you know of anyone who isn't following these rules, please inform
gnu@prep.ai.mit.edu.  We'll tell make sure they start following the
rules.  Please include details such as:

* Precisely what entity is doing the distribution.
* What program is in question.
* Whether it comes with a copy of the GPL (the GPL says it must).
* Whether there is any sort of offer to distribute source code.
* What exactly that offer says.

We have no magic way of finding out who distributes GNU software, and
we don't have the staff to try to keep track.  The only way we know
about disregard for the GPL is if you tell us.


Whenever you think someone may be flouting the GPL, you can post on
gnu.misc.discuss about it if you like.  But that won't inform the FSF;
so the most that usually leads to is a discussion.  If you'd like to
see action, send mail to gnu@prep.ai.mit.edu.