Article View: comp.lang.misc
Article #380Re: The GNU license.
From: Mike (I'll think of something ye...
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 1989 07:26
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 1989 07:26
46 lines
2619 bytes
2619 bytes
In article <10596@riks.csl.sony.JUNET> diamond@csl.sony.co.jp (Norman Diamond) writes: <There is only one case where the copyleft provision is a problem. And that case doesn't really exist. <If someone wants to produce truly public domain software but does not <volunteer the effort to keep providing copies of source [even if he <can be paid for volunteering that effort], it seems to me that if such <a person uses free tools, he is still being ethical. Unfortunately <copylefted tools are not free in this case. Let's see: I use copylefed tools, and produce some program. If the sofware is a "derivative work" of the copylefted tool (note: this may include binaries, but not the original sources), then I can't make it public domain, because that would involved doing the same to the parts of the copylefted tool that it was derived from. So let's say I just want to distributed it under the terms of the GPL. Then I have three options: 1) Give people all the sources needed to build that tool, all copylefted. I have no further obligations to them. 2) Give them only binary, along with a written offer to provide sources for up to three years. If you take this route, that could put someone in the bind you mention. 3) accompany it with the information you received as to where the corresponding source code may be obtained. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form alone.) In other words, someone is only stuck with being in a position of having to provide source to the copylefted tools after they choose not to if they chose the second option. The first option works quite well for many of these people. Normally, your sources isn't a derivative work (even if your binary isn't), so you don't have to provide sources to the copylefted tools - just sources to your program. So where's the problem? <mike -- ICUROK2C, ICUROK2. Mike Meyer ICUROK2C, ICWR2. mwm@berkeley.edu URAQT, I WANT U2. ucbvax!mwm OO2EZ, I WANT U2. mwm@ucbjade.BITNET
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<26882@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!bionet!agate!eris.berkeley.edu!mwmReferences:
<10596@riks.csl.sony.JUNET>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!bionet!agate!eris.berkeley.edu!mwm From: mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: The GNU license. Message-ID: <26882@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> Date: 2 Aug 89 07:26:31 GMT References: <10596@riks.csl.sony.JUNET> Sender: usenet@agate.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica Lines: 46