🚀 go-pugleaf

vinsci@brando.uwasa.fi (Leonard Norrgard) writes:                               
>If X had been under the GPL, the manufacturer *would have to* give me
>the source.  There is no escape to that.  I don't care if their           
>support is bad, as long as there is an alternative.  Since I can't get      
>the source, there really is no alternative as of now.
 
Or they would have implemented their own version, not using GPL'ed code. 
                                                                       
There is also the possibility that they would simply arrange things so that
the source you get is not all you need.  Suppose, for example, someone wanted
to use GNU Emacs in a proprietary editor for Microsoft Windows.  What would    
stop them from doing the following:

        1. Find the places where they want to make proprietary changes to  
        GNU Emacs.

        2. Rewrite those parts so that they depend on a DLL (dynamic link
        library) to perform the functions that they want to do    
        proprietarily (sp?).

        3. Distribute the modified GNU Emacs under GPL.

        4. Implement a proprietary DLL, which is not distributed under
        GPL.

Is this a violation of GPL?

--Tim Smith