🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1iik7pINN4qf@shelley.u.washington.edu> tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>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?

Yes.  The GPL says, in part:

      2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
    of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
    distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
    above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

        ...

        b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
        whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
        part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
        parties under the terms of this License.


(here the "no charge" refers to a licensing fee, not a distribution fee)

There are two reasons for this.

First, a general one.  If we permitted company A to make a propriatary
file, and company B to distribute GNU software linked with that file,
the effect would be to make a hole in the GPL big enough to drive a
truck through.  This would be carte blanche for withholding the source
code for all sorts of modifications and extensions to GNU software.

Giving all users access to the source code is one of our main
goals, so this consequence is definitely something to avoid.

More directly, the versions of GNU software linked with proprietary
libraries would not really be free software as we intend the term--they
would not come with full source code that enables users to change and
recompile the program.