🚀 go-pugleaf

Hello,

 I have a NeXTstation computer, and included in the software
distribution from NeXT is a program called Chess, wich is really
just gnuchess with a nice graphical front end on top of it.

 The "GNU CHESS general public license" is included in the info menu
of the application, with a note saying "Contact NeXT on any questions
of source release policy." Of course, you only get the compiled version.

 I called NeXT the other day, because I would like to see how they
did this front end. I was told that they had *not* modified the gnu
source code, but only added a front end "on top" of it. Therefore, the
person I spoke to argued that this front end was not under the gnu license,
and thus told me that NeXT did not make the source publicly available...

 Now, I'm no legal expert, but it seems to me from reding the
license, that if you're going to include gnuchess in your code,
(since this program obviously has gnuchess compiled into it, regardless
of wether or not there have been any changes to it), then you *have*
to make your source code available.

 Is this a wrong impression? Should I insist that NeXT *has* to make
its source for this program available?

*Please reply via e-mail, as I don't keep up regularly with this group.*

Thanks in advance,

___________________________________________________________________
Pascal Gaudette               gaudette@physun.physics.mcmaster.ca
MacNUG president                      | NO NeXTmail [yet] please  
graduate student, McMaster university | I am not infallible.
Physics and astronomy dep.            | These are just my opinions.